The Big Picture: Pink Is Not The Problem

[TheRealCJ]

One of the major problems with this whole "Get rid of the pink aisle!" thing is that, well... girls like pink. I don't think that it's really a societal stereotype forced on them. It's just a colour girls like, so the toy companies pander to them. If girls were more attracted to lime green, we'd be having the argument that we should 'ban the green aisle!'

Okay, yes, I'm sure that decades (no centuries - Pink before the 1900s was traditionally a 'boy's' colour) of conditioning means that girls have been trained almost genetically to be predisposed to liking pink. But they like it, who cares?

Of course, that's a very shallow reasoning about the colour; Let's get to the meat of the issue. Gender stereotypes aren't bad. Forcing gender stereotypes on people who would rather break the mould is bad. We tell women (and especially little girls) they can be whatever they want to be, and then get ANGRY when what they want to be is something that, without ANY kind of external pressure, is considered "bad" in modern feminism. I'm reminded of that rather funny picture of the man who gave both a dollhouse, and toy cars to his toddler daughter - she put the cars to bed like she would a doll. That's not societal pressure, that's just girls being girls.

It's been proven again and again that girls are gentler and softer, that's just their nature. Toy companies aren't 'forcing their ideals' on girls, they're making toys that reflect what sells best for little girls. The same way they sell grossout toys for boys.

 

[CelestDaer]

The roomie and I were in WalMart earlier, and on our way out, I saw a bin full of Nerf arrow refills, and they were all for the new Heart-something bows, which have girls on the boxing, and I went, "Since when are bow and arrows exclusively masculine?"

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

The thing about The Hunger Games is that it isn't coded Male and Female, but rather Rich and Poor. It's a commentary on our modern society. Just look at what the Rich are wearing, ffs. Those looks are straight from some designers runway. Butt ugly and expensive as fuck, but the rich still buy it because rich. Whilst the poor need to work their ass off to survive, having to fight against the system by the rich in the meantime.

Yes, no and back to yes... I'll explain.

I actually started having a similar thought in regards to 300. Xerxes is just lavishly rich as opposed to the much more simple and "normal" Leonidas. The Spartans live a well .. spartan(1) life. Togas and sandals, very little jewelry and can't even afford pants

But that comes back full circle to the coded stereotypes Bob is talking about. We've heard it from just about every comedian ever, seen silly pictures about it on the intarwebz(2) and probably lived the reality of it; we're hard coded to just accept that women are more expensive and preened. We accept that these are female traits. Women take longer to get ready in the mornings, their clothes (especially underwear) cost 10x more than men's, they wear perfume, get their hair "done" instead of just "cut," etc. etc. etc.

There's a scary amount of overlap between "obviously evil because they're rich" and "acting like a normal woman"



(1) http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Spartan
a. Rigorously self-disciplined or self-restrained.
b. Simple, frugal, or austere: a Spartan diet; a spartan lifestyle.
c. Marked by brevity of speech; laconic.

(2) http://thehoopla.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/mission-go-to-GAP.jpeg

 

[Farther than stars]

(and gender is more likely tied to sex than social construct)

Well, this is essentially where most forms of feminism disagree with you. There are actually quite a lot of gender difference which don't have any clear biological roots. Why is it feminine to wear skirts? Why is it feminine to have long hair? Why is it masculine to be a car mechanic?
As MovieBob points out, all social constructs are created for a rational reason. In the case of gender differences this is most likely biology. But after that, sociology goes on to contend that the social construct comes to live a life of its own. And history seems to support this. After all, it makes sense for 'the man' to be the sole breadwinner in a primitive society where physical strength for hunting and fighting is necessary. But this tendency carried on well into civilized society, where it no longer had any rational purpose. Sometimes the social construct outlives the biology and in those instances it is a good thing to challenge it, because it would cause too much harm while waiting the thousands of years necessary for a biological change.
Concerning the dearth of research, I was referring to the power a social construct can have outside of the body. So whereas ant society is organized strictly by their genes (i.e. their biology decides whether they're worker, army or queen and gives them their knowledge of how to construct nests and form supply lines), we humans don't have that kind of 1 to 1 genetic programming and the social construct exists outside us (i.e. there are no genes that make us religious fundamentalists; we need to be taught that, in the same way that we need to be taught how to make a light bulb).

P.S. Since English is your fourth language, I feel obliged to point out that "honey" has very specific connotations, quite fitting with this subject. If you're a man, calling another man "honey" would make you seem very metrosexual - which is fine! I just thought you should know.

P.P.S. You're doing a good job, I didn't even notice that English isn't your first language. And kudos for taking on such a complex discussion; I could only debate this issue in two languages and even then I would struggle in the second.

P.P.P.S. Where in the world are you from that English is only your fourth language? I'm guessing China or Eastern Europe.

 

[Therumancer]

A defense isn't even necessary. At the end of the day there is nothing wrong with having an effeminate, homosexual, and/or crossdressing bad guy. One of the biggest problems with liberalism is that it tends to lead to outcries that turn into an effort to declare certain groups into sacred cows where you can't say, do, or use them in any kind of bad, or antagonistic role at all. One of the reasons why I inherently oppose 99% of this stuff, because even when there is a legitimate point, in many cases acknowledging it is going to do 100x more damage than was being done by what it was intended to address.

I completely agree with you. We don't need to narrow our range of villain archetypes, that would be a terrible loss to creativity. Rather, we need to expand our set of heroes. We need protagonists who not just female, although that's fun too, but also feminine and even effeminate.

Until that happens it is somewhat tedious that some characters are only allowed to be bad guys, comic relief, or both.

But Him in particular bothered me not just because it played up the effeminate male as creepy and off-putting, but because that character is just straight up Satan. The joke there is that the devil is flaming, that evil is gay. Maybe it doesn't hold that reciprocal is also true, but dang, ain't that a fine line to be walking.

Plus South Park made the same joke a few years later, a clear sign it is time to reevaluate one's life choices.

Well, I do not believe in "sacred cows" in any way, shape, or form. To be honest when you start saying "making the devil gay" is a problem, the same can be applied to making the devil anything at all, and honestly while Powerpuff Girls and South Park did a very similar joke, it should be noted that they have also made the devil both a man, a woman (Liz Hurley for example), and Androgynous in various works through the years. Not to mention donating to, or sponsoring political parties (or making faustian deals with politicians), and pretty much anything you can think of. I guess you could say it's about as equal opportunity as you can get.

It doesn't matter what group you are, or how it's defined, everyone and everything gets to be the punch line of jokes like that at some point. It's just how things are, laugh and move on, or if your offended, simply don't subject yourself to the media in question. Political correctness and the censorship it leads to is a greater threat than even genuine hate speech could ever dream of being. Nobody and nothing should be considered taboo as far as jokes like this go. To be honest knocking the government could arguably be considered a much bigger deal than knocking a minority as it affects a lot more people, yet it happens every day.

 

[persephone]

As a little girl, I liked pink fluffy dresses. The pinker and fluffier, the better! And on the playground, when my peers were running around pretending to be the Ninja Turtles, I was also the one who decided I was Donatello and climbed up the jungle gym to rescue the girl playing April. I was stunned and confused when she informed me I couldn't rescue her because I was a girl.

Now, granted, she may well have simply meant I couldn't play Donatello, who is, after all, male. (Though the impact at the time was, "you can't rescue me, you're a girl." Not that I let it discourage me; I just concluded she was being silly.) But that memory always stuck with me nevertheless, because to this day I simply can't begin to see why on earth most gender roles exist. The *very* basic ones, like how you have to be female to be a mother, those make sense. But the ones that say mothers have to stay at home, or this is what women should like or do for a living, are just ridiculous.

One thing I've noticed in life is that while gender stereotypes do have a basis in fact, they have a basis in trends, not rules. Women tend to be gentler and better communicators than men, but it's a tendency, not a rule.

I agree completely with Bob about how our society codes "masculine" and "feminine" traits and objects; it's ridiculous. Especially because you do get people like me who both want to dress like a princess and swoop in and save your ass. Preferably with a pair of katanas and some explosions.

 

[Izzyisme]

I think a problem with many arguments against Bob in this thread rely on faulty logic. Yes men and women's brains are wired differently to some degree. But every single gender difference in our society does not stem from those differences. Studies show those differences to be memory and social skills, not proclivity for pink toys, violence, etc. So the argument is that if we look at the scientific studies and analyze history, we can try to find out what's societal and what's rooted in biology. Some people do oversell to what degree things are societal, but far more likely is to encounter people who entirely conflate history and nature. And I'm seeing a lot of that here.

 

[nondescript]

Best deconstruction ever.

I see lot's of this at my (retail) job - even more now that I'm helping in apparel. Kids getting told a shoe is "too girly" or "looks like a boys shoe," girls turning down a camo shirt since it has a pink stripe or a boys onesie that has feminine drawings. I've even been asked to find another coworker, because the customer didn't want to talk to a man!

I understand that if you want to be "girlie" or "macho" that's your choice and okay. What bothers me is when they treat their opinion as law.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I'm sorry, did you just suggest that the bad guys in the Hunger Games are coded female and then show Thread getting a good whip in? The Capitol and its citizens aren't the bad guys. They're like innocent, naive children who don't know any better. They can't empathise with the people in the districts because their society pulls them along, much like Germans probably wouldn't individually act like they did as a country in the World Wars. Ironic when your video is partially about society informing our thought patterns without our knowledge.

Spoiler: If you are not up to date with the HGs don't read this.

Although I will give you that Snow is somewhat effeminate and Crane was to a greater degree, and Plutarch and Cinna are about the least lavish and pretentious and turn out to be the actually good guys (although perhaps it says something that Plutarch was a convincing bad guy while he was), the citizens of the Capitol do not come into it.

Last thing about the Hunger Games: What they are trying to depict with the flamboyance and excess of the Capitol (which is what the societal trends embody) is not femininity, it's wealth and obliviousness, in contrast not to masculinity, but to poverty, and the circumstances of their living would go quite a ways to informing how 'hard' or 'soft' people are. The people in the districts don't get to involve themselves in fashion and partying because they have to work, and learn practical skills. Whether those are masculine or not (and they are because males traditionally filled those roles) is neither here nor there, it's a product of their environment.

But concerning the bulk of the video, from a patriarchy-sustaining rape culture participant (or so I've heard) like myself, that was pretty decent. The point is to provide choice so kids can play with whatever they want, not to label products marketed towards girls as detrimental. Although I would suggest that it's probably easier for manufacturers if they only have to do two types of things rather than cater to all possible interests.

Bob, honey, I hope you do realise that the "pink isle", the "gender roles" and all the stuff that comes with it is never going away. Man and women evolved a little bit differently and our brains perceive the world a little bit differently. We like different things for a reason. Male and females have different brain "wiring". The common stereotypes in men and women excelling at different tasks is there for a reason, the differences between gender is a natural difference and not socially constructed. Numerous of the largest scientific brain scan studies has concluded that the developmental trajectories of males and females separate at a young age, demonstrating wide differences during adolescence and adulthood.
It is possible that the reason why male and female brains are "wired differently" could be argued to be the result of environmental and/or socialization differences, and not the result of a inherent biological difference. That, however, still makes all the effort to "smash teh gender roles" fruitless, because it is literally thousands of years of social programming at work and will take at least half as long to break it.

I'm afraid that doesn't help your point at all. I happen to agree that genders like different things for a reason, I think it's biological, but if it is all society shaping our thoughts and feelings from as soon as we can perceive it, you saying "Well it's been happening for so long now it's going to be hard to undo" isn't helping anything. If that's the case we should be starting now, abolishing all the trends that impede our freedom of expression by forcing tendancies upon us at a young age. As I said, I don't think that's the case.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

My problem with that argument you've been making about the Hunger Games, Bob, is that the main villains...are not coded feminine. That President Snow, the military commander, the many white storm troopers, they all looked pretty manly to me.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

MovieBob takes on the gender stereotyping our society dabbles in.

Thank you Bob! Well said.

You not only did a great job of discussing Gender Coding - something I think would benefit most of the Escapist community to know about so that they don't look at those of us who've studied it like we're insane whenever we bring it up as an established cultural thing - but also talked about a number of positive solutions to the issue.

As some Escapists may recall, last year I had a kid. This year, my kid is a toddler. My kid has teeth now, which means my kid needs to brush those teeth.

My kid has two tooth brushes. One has Pinkie Pie on it. The other has Thomas the Tank Engine.

My personal solution to gender coding has been (and shall continue to be) to give my kid an equal measure of both.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Meh, he kind of had me until the whole thing about how the bad guys in "Hunger Games" are "coded female".

The whole point of Hunger Games it that the evil wealthy rich folk are basically supposed to represent the Roman aristocracy from Ancient Rome: they wear wigs and make-up and live a debaucherous and hedonistic lifestyle while watching the unwashed masses die for their entertainment. It has way more to do with 'rich vs. poor' than 'masculine vs. feminine'.

"My kid has two tooth brushes. One has Pinkie Pie on it. The other has Thomas the Tank Engine.

My personal solution to gender coding has been (and shall continue to be) to give my kid an equal measure of both."

Why not let your kid choose?

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

And on the playground, when my peers were running around pretending to be the Ninja Turtles, I was also the one who decided I was Donatello and climbed up the jungle gym to rescue the girl playing April. I was stunned and confused when she informed me I couldn't rescue her because I was a girl.

I just wanted to mention something.

If you like Anime, you should really watch Revolutionary Girl Utena. It is an anime that is ABOUT what you just described: a young woman who decides that she wants to be a "prince" and rescue "princesses".

There is literally a scene that mirrors what you described (ie, a girl telling the title character that she can't rescue her because the title character is a girl), except less playgrounds and more sword fighting with non-blunted blades.

 

[Abomination]

If i may.

Perhaps these "evil is feminine, good is masculine" tropes are not how you picture it.

Think of it, preening, decadent, over reliance on superficial enhancement. These are not bad because they are feminine, they are bad because they are literally bad. Destructive. It is damaging to a society if a few select members indulge to the degree at which they harm its other members.

What do our "masculine" tropes have to offer? Brave, selfless, accomplished, strong willed. Traits which help further a society by having its members aid its other members, and add to the collective pool of resources.

You have it backwards Bob (and i know I'm going to catch a lot of flack from you knee-jerk reactionists, but bite me):

Evil isn't Feminine.
Femininity, unconstrained and unbalanced and its indulgences unchecked, IS Evil.

(Flames and hatemail to [email protected])

I think it's just another example as to how something is taken far far out of context and a parallel is drawn that doesn't exist.

But that's the usual with claims that a particular media draws females or feminine traits in poor light.

I mean, for every supposedly "negative" female attribute there's a decidedly negative male attribute. Anger, rage, pointless brutality, sexual lechery, over-protectiveness and might over mind.

But The Hunger Games just has those supposed negative traits taken into an area where they do become negative. When they're used too much and without restraint or consideration. No, Xerxes is not evil because he "tarts" himself up. He does so because that's Persian culture and how alien the Asians were to the Greeks at the time in their mannerisms.

 

[UberPubert]

As a little girl, I liked pink fluffy dresses. The pinker and fluffier, the better! And on the playground, when my peers were running around pretending to be the Ninja Turtles, I was also the one who decided I was Donatello and climbed up the jungle gym to rescue the girl playing April. I was stunned and confused when she informed me I couldn't rescue her because I was a girl.

Now, granted, she may well have simply meant I couldn't play Donatello, who is, after all, male. (Though the impact at the time was, "you can't rescue me, you're a girl." Not that I let it discourage me; I just concluded she was being silly.) But that memory always stuck with me nevertheless, because to this day I simply can't begin to see why on earth most gender roles exist. The *very* basic ones, like how you have to be female to be a mother, those make sense. But the ones that say mothers have to stay at home, or this is what women should like or do for a living, are just ridiculous.

One thing I've noticed in life is that while gender stereotypes do have a basis in fact, they have a basis in trends, not rules. Women tend to be gentler and better communicators than men, but it's a tendency, not a rule.

Nice post

I think the most important thing for people to remember (that you bring up) is that a lot of these "societal roles" still aren't actually rules. This, of course, means that people don't have to follow them when society brings them up, but when framing the discussion we should also keep in mind that no one's actually enforcing them either (no one has the authority to do so in the western world, anyway).

The best place discussions like these can go is remembering and reinforcing the idea that people who do try to assert their stereotypes as rules are the equivalent of silly girls on jungle gyms who don't want to be saved.

 

[Nurb]

I think bob misinterpreted over-indulgence in luxury and material goods as "feminine" when discussing the villians

 

[daxterx2005]

Im surprised you didnt bring up MLP:FIM

 

[Moth_Monk]

Villain character archetypes are actually based on a homosexual sub-text. Now there's a bizarre hypothesis. Considering the fact that for Christian ideas about sexuality are fairly recent in terms of human history, we can dispense with that idea.

 

[Andy of Comix Inc]

My film class teacher once said I should make the villain of my piece my effeminate. I staunchly refused, of course. It just feels wrong to me, honestly. In the same way that giving the Helghast in Killzone those cockney accents feels wrong. Effeminate people aren't evil! They're kind and sweet and friendly! Why vilify that element of anyone?

 

[Andre Nilsson]

do you want to know a ironic thing about pink as a feminine color? up to the 1940s ping was sin as a masculine color and blue was the feminine one. I don't know why it change. So in any other century the pink aisle is fore the bays not the girls.