[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.