[k_os]

I myself believe in market dynamics. If girls were interested in what boys had they'd pursue it. If girls hated barbies they would nag parents about getting a train or a car and market demand for barbies would dry up. The fact that toy dolls are a billion dollar industry should make one sceptical about the supposed 'girliness that society instills in girls'. I find that premise as silly as thinking boys were somehow 'indoctrinated' into liking computers.

[lclarkmichalek]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Whoa. Programmed into our DNA, that's a pretty extraordinary claim. Consider feral children:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_children#Reality

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?

[booyaa00]

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.

[roel_v]

No, because an anecdote does not data make.

[aestra]

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-differe...

[saraid216]

I know a father who claims that his daughter does math specifically because she knows it makes him happy.

[macspoofing]

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]

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.

[k_os]

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.

[mdisraeli]

http://www.wisegeek.com/have-pink-and-blue-always-been-consi...

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]

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.

[rmk2]

> what girls innately like

This makes the assumption that there is indeed something innate about purchasing. Short of credible psychological research, most market research relies on past sales data, past products, as well as a survey of existing products. Marketing, then, forms a self-stabilising and self-perpetuated system that makes future decisions based on its own past decisions.

This is remarkably close to Adorno and Horkheimer's view of the cultural industry: The underlying thesis here is that the culture industry preselects cultural production. Within the constraints of that preselection, the customer is free to choose whatever he or she fancies. This in turn leads to a culture industry that can claim that every subsequent selection is indeed strictly based on past consumer behaviour. After a while, this claim can even be truthful, if this initial preselection is ignored. That is why the Dialectic of Enlightenment calls this a mass deception.

[6d0debc071]

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

[knowitall]

A handy way to sell things twice if boys and girls need different colors. Maybe not so much for dolls, but certainly for clothes (can't pass on clothes from older sibling if gender differs).

Perhaps the main desire being served is to be able to announce "I am a boy" or "I am a girl".

Also note that there aren't many pink first person shooters.

[kaybe]

The camouflage performance of pink in a realistic setting could play a role; you'd have to have a very pink world.. hm. (Unreal Tournament maybe? In my mind it was kinda purple..)

[knowitall]

Pink world wouldn't be a problem I think. Many FPS seem to play in weirdly colored fantasy worlds.

[mdisraeli]

Children have no buying power. Parents and guardians actually perform the purchasing, and will only buy items that they consider acceptable. This is governed not just by their own personal values and media consumption, but importantly by the views of their family, friends and peers.

Children themselves are not immune to peer pressure, especially as they get older. They also want to meet the expectations of their parents and guardians. They too consume media, and like all of us make decisions based on both what they are told to want, and what they are told it is acceptable to want

[knowitall]

I suspect most parents hate pink, though - they just give in to the wishes of their daughters.

[rmc]

But very definitely not give into the wishes of their sons who want pink. Parents apply pressure too.

[knowitall]

True :-) More people seem to be concerned about girls liking pink than about boys not liking pink, though.

[rmc]

Boys will physically assault boys who like pink. It'd say that counts as "people concerned that boys don't display their liking of pink".

[knowitall]

Hm, is that a general rule? My son is not yet in school, so I don't know what it is like these days.

Also "like pink" is different from owning the occasional pink thing. I suppose a boy who would dress exclusively in pink would stand out, and maybe the bullies would try to cut him down. Still, I suspect it is not a large scale problem - obviously I don't condone the actions of such bullies, I mean there are probably not that many boys who would prefer to dress all in pink. (I didn't research that, though - in any case everybody should be allowed to like/wear whatever they want).

[rayiner]

We have a house full of Disney princess stuff for our one year old. It will probably still be true when she's 5 and can actually influence our purchasing choices. But what will the "market dynamics" tell you about her preferences, other than they are stable once we established them?

Anyone who still believes in a simplistic rational actor desperately needs to read the work that's been done on behavioral economics. Dan Ariely's work is an approachable way to start. He hasn't tackled socialization yet, but it still gives you an idea of how human actors don't resemble the platonic ideal at all.

[k_os]

I believe feminism is most prevalent today than it ever was in history, are there any statistics showing that girl toy sales have declined?

From a quick search i find this : http://www.marketwatch.com/story/mattel-net-falls-24-as-barb...

Barbie sales declining but American Girl is up 14%.

You'd think that half a century of counter-culture would almost drive to the ground gender specific toy manufacturers.

[rayiner]

First, "feminism" is too broad of a concept to apply in this context. The subset of "feminism" you're probably talking about, a counter-culture push back against gendered socialization, never got much traction to begin with and is certainly not more prevalent today than it was say in the 1960's and 1970's. The mainstream of modern feminism embraces gendered socialization, and indeed there is a major contingent of modern "feminists" that are quite reactionary (extolling the virtues of stay at home motherhood). Moreover, birthing and medical trends have also gone backwards. For example, formula feeding, which unshackles mothers and allows fathers to assume the primary role in feeding infants, has been on the decline since the 1970's. In 1972, only 22% of women breastfed in the U.S., by 1995 it was back over 60%. We're still limping towards gender equality, but "feminism" as it used to exist is quite dead.

Second, it's ridiculous to think that "half a century of counter-culture" would do anything to impact a sociological phenomenon that has roots in human society dating back hundreds if not thousands of years. Girls are given dolls to play with because the historical role of women has been primary caregivers to children. That was true a thousand years ago, and it's less true but still very true today. In the 2000's, almost 25% of families with children under 15 had stay at home moms, and out of the families where both spouses worked, the mother was the primary caregiver in 70%+ of cases. This sociological fact is reflected in the market. Household products are still marketed to women, and unsurprisingly, so are dolls marketed to girls.

[mdisraeli]

Surely you're just ignoring the other possibility - that increasingly gendered marketing is helping to drive feminism (which, from the people I know, does look to be the case!)

[runarberg]

According to your theory --of children as free thinkers whose actions represent their own 'free will'-- doesn't account for why advertizement works. If it were true, nobody would spend money on advertizement because everybody's actions is fully controlled by rational thinkers.

Nor does your theory account for insanity or stupidity (why do something stupid if you have full control of your actions?)

In fact your theory implies that children somehow are agents not affected by outside stimuli. Which would make them unique in nature.

Your theory in fact is by far more unbelievable then any theory of the powers of marketing.

[bcoates]

Advertising can perform a signalling function without anybody involved being irrational.

[runarberg]

Doesn't falsify my point.

If everybody was rational, then no advertising would perform signalling function if it wouldn't serve to maximize our utility.

[octo_t]

Adult human beings are not rational actors, why on earth would you expect prepubescent children to be? the age group that is most targeted by advertising (because they're the most impressionable).

[rmc]

Society was able to convince millions of LGBT people to suppress some pretty fundamental desired and wishes. It takes a lot of strength to overcome it, many people used to just kill themselves instead. And you think children are stronger than that when it comes to toys?

[6d0debc071]

Barbies are fun. But that's not the point. Marketing is about identity at least as much as it is about the product. You look at beer adverts, how many of them directly bear on the beer?

http://youtu.be/MX145Tu4MHY

That could be any beer, or a magic potion, you know nothing about it.

Or shower gel

http://youtu.be/DVm00UBdS0Y

Or cars

http://youtu.be/ox_uDBrkp-M

"You can have this car, and everything that goes with it."

"Now you can drive the story."

There's certainly an element of information there, at least when you start getting onto companies that have an advantage in a technical area. But often, you're being sold a role: Buy this and you'll get women, wealth, etc.

When I was a girl, and still to an extent now I'm older, I wanted the things I was told I was going to like, and which it was expected that I was going to. You look at something and you see someone like you, or with some aspect of life that you want to have. A lot of the pitch towards us isn't dolls, it's friendship, or fashion, or something like that - broadly speaking, group identity.

The problem is you don't see the comparisons. If there aren't people like you being forwarded as enjoying and having fun with something, you may never try it, and even if you do the chances are that few people like you will, so you lose a lot of the social enjoyment that goes along with a thing.

Of course you're right. If girls all really hated barbies, we probably wouldn't have played with them - though I've no doubt some of us would have out of a desire to fit in. But that's not really the point. The question is how closely that approaches optimal; the most enjoyment that we could have got from a range of options, only a narrow range of which are promoted to us and will allow us to still be accepted by our friends who have also had these identities sold to them.

[numeromancer]

    Barbies are fun.

[Citation needed]

/Manly man

[alex_c]

Counter-example: can you honestly say that you have never, not once in your life, paused to consider whether an item (a jacket, an accessory, sunglasses, whatever) is for males or females before deciding to buy it?