The Big Picture: Pink Is Not The Problem

[Helmholtz Watson]

Where is "natural order" then, other than where it belongs - bent to will of those with the vision and temerity to do the bending?

And who's will should it be bent towards? Who gets to do the bending? Do only people with Western Liberal values get to do this,

Ew.

Care to provide a more thought out response to my question than the minimal comment you originally posted?

I only ask because too often it seems like some people are more than happy in wanting to mimic Mao Zedong's "relationship" with traditional Chinese culture, by come up with their own "four olds" and supporting the idea of a Cultural Revolution(red guards and all). What about those of us that don't support this cultural revolution, and those of us that don't agree on what should be considered the "four olds"?

Then like any reactionary force you'd have your anti-progressive attitudes suppressed by whatever means necessary.

...And is that supposed to be a good thing that there would be red guards to suppress the attitudes of those who don't agree with the same beliefs as MovieBob?

 

[Bbleds]

So finally had some free time to watch, and this was a very interesting episode. So since it mainly discussed the issue; my opinion on how to avoid this in the future ,specifically with regards to creative media works, is to simply let characters to be characters. The more a writer forces a work to fit a model, gender/sexual orientation archetype for example, the more it will be noticed and likely interpreted as such. To clarify, I am not saying archetypes/stereotypes should be completely ignored. Just that when someone is making a plot and sees a character is a woman, man, gay, straight, bisexual, alien, animal, lovecraftian horror, etc; they could maybe use less "well they should do this because they are...." and more "now how would my creative character react in this scenario." One last thing on my comment on a possibly old and dead (by internet standards) board; if anyone already said something like this I apologize since I rode in after about 300 comments. Was hoping (obviously) for a discussion on what others thought on making "stuff better" or more reflective of our current culture.

 

[Requia]

As much as I'd like to say Bob is right, he is kind of wrong about a few things. Gender tropes do sometimes actually exist. I'm a father of 2 sons, and across the street are 2 little girls. They all play together, but what I notice is that the boys have an increased interest in violence, especially competitive violence. The girls are more developed mentally which is to be expected as girls development faster mentally. As thus they tend to get tired of the endless wave of swords, guns, and the sheer obsession with violent character types (ninjas, soldiers, zombies, alien invaders, etc).

And all of that is about how the kids were raised and the media they've been exposed too. Mental biological differences don't develop until puberty.

 

[Yuuki]

And all of that is about how the kids were raised and the media they've been exposed too. Mental biological differences don't develop until puberty.

So the kids were raised that way and exposed to media, which is their parents' fault. And their parents are only doing it because that's what they were brought up to do by their parents. In fact long before media came around, girls and boys were even more pressured into gender stereotypes by their parents and society...so I have a hard time believing media made things worse. The cycle goes back hundreds, if not thousands of years, with no apparent beginning and no end in sight.

And now we're being told it's all a negative thing (something that needs to stop), when girls being girls and boys being boys is one of the main reasons we've made it so far, how entire civilizations progressed.

Interesting times we live in, that's for sure.

 

[Requia]

And all of that is about how the kids were raised and the media they've been exposed too. Mental biological differences don't develop until puberty.

So the kids were raised that way and exposed to media, which is their parents' fault. And their parents are only doing it because that's what they were brought up to do by their parents. In fact long before media came around, girls and boys were even more pressured into gender stereotypes by their parents and society...so I have a hard time believing media made things worse. The cycle goes back hundreds, if not thousands of years, with no apparent beginning and no end in sight.

And now we're being told it's all a negative thing (something that needs to stop), when girls being girls and boys being boys is one of the main reasons we've made it so far, how entire civilizations progressed.

Interesting times we live in, that's for sure.

While all cultures do have male/female roles, they vary drastically across time and culture. Pink was a little boys color until the early 20th century, and little boys were often dressed in well, behold FDR, age 2: http://imgur.com/3XEr48V

Even stuff like men fight/women don't are *not* universal in Anglo cultural heritage (which I single out to avoid any vaguely racist nitpicking about how other cultures weren't progressing), both Viking invaders to Britain and the Celtic natives resisting the Romans saw women in combat, and in significant proportions as well.

 

[Regless]

I loved this episode. It's very true to the point that whenever I see a pink haired character I'm immediately expecting her to be dumb, and/or weak and am usually not disappointed... err usually am disappoint... I'm usually correct! There.

A good example I usually think of is Amy from the Sonic games. I absolutely hated her... until I read the comics. There she at least had a personality that didn't solely revolve around the main character and could even handle being front in center in a few spin off arcs with Sonic a whole world away. And they didn't really have to change her character to do it. She was still kinda girly, still adored sonic, and was still pink. They just took certain traits of her character and applied them to other aspects so she wasn't written like a prop anymore. For example if she's willing to follow sonic into a warzone and consistently get out of it with a few scratches if anything, she's probably braver and tougher than she looks. And I think that's movie bob's point. She didn't have to be written like a slice of burnt toast because she was a pinko girly girl, that's just what many of us sometimes focus on.

On the flip side you have Sakura from Naruto. She's been largely useless for a long time and even though she got upgraded in Shippuden her role remained the same. She gets knocked out by flying bodies, scratches are wearing her down several episodes later. She just written in a way that seems to make her inferior to the male characters even when she shouldn't be. Or at least that's what I've gathered from the episodes I've seen. Cheers.

@Requia: Nice catch on the pink being a boys color

 

[The Ubermensch]

There is such a thing as too gay... Although they generally end up hate fucked... so...

Anyway... OH! The mincing and carrying on and things like that? Are they homosexual tropes or aristocratic tropes?

And... wait... I hope you're not suggesting all gays are mincers!

Your example of Leonidas? Masculine, yeah sure. But you can bet, on those dark nights in the barracks after a sweaty day of training, he's in a man meat sandwich.

I mean, not to diminish your argument but... who the fuck is stereotyping here!?!

 

[Farther than stars]

Because women simply had enough time to do it and didn't need to maintain a practical approach to body care. Especially the idea of the "American Dream", envisioned a family in which the man provides at work/war and the woman breeds more children for work/war.

Now, this perspective is problematic for a different reason. It assumes that because women don't maintain professions, they don't 'work'. That's not only incredibly offensive, because it negates housework as being actual work, but because we're speaking of an era in which women overwhelmingly did all of the housework, this also doesn't make sense. In most middle-class families, for instance, the man would have had a desk job and wouldn't need such a 'practical approach to body care' either. However, in these cases, the woman would be doing the majority of manual labour (washing, cleaning, cooking, etc.).

 

[nuttshell]

It assumes that because women don't maintain professions, they don't 'work'. That's not only incredibly offensive, because it negates housework as being actual work, but because we're speaking of an era in which women overwhelmingly did all of the housework, this also doesn't make sense. In most middle-class families, for instance, the man would have had a desk job and wouldn't need such a 'practical approach to body care' either. However, in these cases, the woman would be doing the majority of manual labour (washing, cleaning, cooking, etc.).

I never said women didnt need to do anything, I only said women had more time. I also didnt talk about desk jobs, I was thinking about building railroads, working at construction sites, in mines and in the military.

 

[Farther than stars]

It assumes that because women don't maintain professions, they don't 'work'. That's not only incredibly offensive, because it negates housework as being actual work, but because we're speaking of an era in which women overwhelmingly did all of the housework, this also doesn't make sense. In most middle-class families, for instance, the man would have had a desk job and wouldn't need such a 'practical approach to body care' either. However, in these cases, the woman would be doing the majority of manual labour (washing, cleaning, cooking, etc.).

I never said women didnt need to do anything, I only said women had more time. I also didnt talk about desk jobs, I was thinking about building railroads, working at construction sites, in mines and in the military.

Except that wives to construction workers and miners didn't belong to the social class that wore make-up. Also, the idea that 'women would have more time' is a fairly distorted view anyway. Even in modern times, when a lot of mothers have part-time jobs, women still end up doing most of the housework. It was even worse a century ago and it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that women spent more of their time on work than men, spending most of that time on child-rearing and running the household. The idea that cosmetics became centered around women because they would 'have more time' and 'did less physical labour' is a complete misrepresentation of that era and highly sexist as well.

 

[Groverfield]

Just got back from the store, saw a woman in line buying gifts for assumably her daughter, pinkaisle nerf guns. I'm not going to speculate to what point this matters for gender coding this as something "girl-safe," but I do think that there is something inherantly wrong with gender coding that goes alongside the lines of 1950's segregation. What's next, drinking fountains labeled "pinks only?"

 

[CymbaIine]

It assumes that because women don't maintain professions, they don't 'work'. That's not only incredibly offensive, because it negates housework as being actual work, but because we're speaking of an era in which women overwhelmingly did all of the housework, this also doesn't make sense. In most middle-class families, for instance, the man would have had a desk job and wouldn't need such a 'practical approach to body care' either. However, in these cases, the woman would be doing the majority of manual labour (washing, cleaning, cooking, etc.).

I never said women didnt need to do anything, I only said women had more time. I also didnt talk about desk jobs, I was thinking about building railroads, working at construction sites, in mines and in the military.

Except that wives to construction workers and miners didn't belong to the social class that wore make-up. Also, the idea that 'women would have more time' is a fairly distorted view anyway. Even in modern times, when a lot of mothers have part-time jobs, women still end up doing most of the housework. It was even worse a century ago and it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that women spent more of their time on work than men, spending most of that time on child-rearing and running the household. The idea that cosmetics became centered around women because they would 'have more time' and 'did less physical labour' is a complete misrepresentation of that era and highly sexist as well.

Good point about class, that's the other thing about these stereo-types of femininity and the pink ailse, the are very white-middle-class focused.

EDIT- Just an edit for US readers, by middle class I mean private school, living comfortably off one income, second holiday home.

 

[nuttshell]

Except that wives to construction workers and miners didn't belong to the social class that wore make-up. Also, the idea that 'women would have more time' is a fairly distorted view anyway. Even in modern times, when a lot of mothers have part-time jobs, women still end up doing most of the housework. It was even worse a century ago and it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that women spent more of their time on work than men, spending most of that time on child-rearing and running the household. The idea that cosmetics became centered around women because they would 'have more time' and 'did less physical labour' is a complete misrepresentation of that era and highly sexist as well.

Well, I thought, it was pretty simple...after all, working at home without an overseer is a more relaxed type of work, especially when you have a child or two to help...then I dug around for proof but as it seems, I was somewhat wrong. Some sources indicate cosmetics were used by men too untill 1850, and some say, the state viewed cosmetics as a health hazzard, also the independance war and of course the moral crusading of the church made cosmetics "unpopular".

http://angelasancartier.net/cosmetics-western

http://www.authorsden.com/categories/article_top.asp?catid=10&id=15438

http://flawlessgl.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/the-origin-evolution-of-cosmetics/

http://www.makeup2enhance.com/history-of-makeup.html

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/worklaborunions/a/early_america.htm

The last one mentions woman working as apothecaries, which also offered cosmetics.

Also:

Except that wives to construction workers and miners didn't belong to the social class that wore make-up.

Not the expensive kind. One of these websites even says, that African slaves used cosmetics which of course, makes my argument more moot.

 

[Darken12]

While everything you said is true Bob, the discussion has in generally moved forward now. To my understanding, that's a discussion that was being had about 5-10 years ago. Ironically, the current discussion is how the mainstream feminism demonises women who do not show a sufficient "femininity" quota (Katniss has been getting a lot of hate precisely for the reasons you're outlining).

Which is not only harmful because it reinforces the gender binary, but also represents a throw-back to "you are only a good woman if you are sufficiently feminine" stereotypes. While I sympathise with the desire to change the association of "feminine = evil", I find that the pendulum has swung too far towards the other side.

 

[MYWA]

All I know is Madoka Kaname wears the most ridiculous fluffy pink dress I have ever seen a character wear and she's fucking BADASS. And if anyone tells me as a grown-ass man that I'm wrong for liking that, they can go screw.

 

[BrainBlow]

Pink used to be considered a masculine color. I wouldn't mind if that was to be again.

 

[Aitamen]

Just want to say that the "girl" legos led to a lot of really good design work, and a *lot* more variety... that really should've been around more recently than they were, though I'm happy to have them now.

For me, the problem with the pink aisle is the parents who forbid their little boys from walking through them (and the forces which make those parents... Fox News?), just like bob's on about.