The Big Picture: Pink Is Not The Problem

[ToastyMozart]

Wait, there is a Nintendo promotional commercial which has Mario looking up Peach's dress?

...Wow, I just noticed that. Though I'm pretty sure her dress is the type with a million frills and layers under there, so he's probably not seeing much.

 

[ToastyMozart]

The pink aisle won't go away, if for no other reason that stores separate stuff by type and genres, but for roles to truly break down, we need people to quit propping them up with their complaints about them, or overly championing their dismissal. Only then will these old norms have been truly broken.

Honestly, I wish it would go away just because it's something of an eyesore. The blue, green, yellow, etc isles are fine because it's a "cool" color and there's usually enough variety in the products themselves to keep things from betting obnoxious. Why anyone thought an isle of nothing but a single vivid "warm" color was a good idea escapes me. I've been in pink painted rooms before, and it's just unpleasant.

 

[Flames66]

'Gender is a social construct'.

Opinion discarded.

Not sure what's got your goat about that statement. Gender is defined as "the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)" so he's not referring to sexual characteristics, just how people with each are molded by society. The idea that males should like, do and be certain things while females should to others is looking pretty outdated nowadays.

 

[Hutzpah Chicken]

That was a well laid out argument there, Bob. You can easily tie that into your whole, "Like what you like," episode from a few months ago. I guess you can make the point that societal things push that masculinity is good, femininity is bad and I can understand that in a practical sense. When you have to survive, its best to be strong and able rather than whatever the feminine traits are.
I don't think it really matters to whom an object is directed towards. Anyone is free to buy them. Also, everyone is free to believe what they want. It's when someone forces their ideals onto another person an issue is created. I think all the guys who obsess over My Little Pony are weird, not because I think its a "girly thing" but because I don't really care for My Little Pony, nor do I care about most of the people because I think they're annoying. I, for example, bought the entire Powergirl series and am still reading the New 52 one and the Supergirl series. Are those marketed towards girls? I don't know, but I don't care because I like them. I have no idea where I'm going with this, but I like that you find a nice, sensible path to an issue instead of an incredibly liberal or progressive standpoint.

 

[RiffRaff]

I think Bob had some good things to say: Don't vilify the pink isle because then you may affect anyone who actually enjoys that isle.

But man he missed the boat on the Masculine=Good and Feminine=Bad. Sure I see that it can exist, but the Hunger Games example was completely off-base.

 

[MovieBob]

It's natural order.

"Natural order" has been largely meaningless to human beings since we started making/wearing clothes, making/using tools, turning minerals into metals, mastering fire to turn night into day, etc. We ripped lightning from the hands of The Gods and stuck it in wires and bulbs so we didn't have to sleep and live by the dictates of seasons and celestial orbit. We're communicating at the speed of thought right now, using a fusion of a thousand technologies and "unnatural" advancements. We'll be rewriting our own DNA at will within most of our lifetimes. Where is "natural order" then, other than where it belongs - bent to will of those with the vision and temerity to do the bending?

 

[Troispoint]

The problem with this new age gender equality thing is that it's attacking gender distinctions. As if differences between men and women are inherently harmful, as stereotypically they may be represented. Trying to eliminate cultural (and sometimes natural) differences between male and female isn't liberation. Social distinctions is not oppression. The same way you can't be an individual if you're on your own in the wild. Because distinctions between genders aren't always arbitrary. There's no freedom in a tabula rasa. The reality is much more complicated than what feminist gender theory would let you know. You can add new social categories such as the legitimacy of the homosexual couple, that's progress, but eliminating social representations is both lazy and counterproductive.

 

[chikusho]

Men and women are two very distinct beings, with equally distinct body mechanism and behavioral and emotional makeups. Denying this is denying the very science that the LGBT agenda has been pushing for decades to legitimize (unsuccessfully, I might add) their social degeneracy so that we can all embrace 'diversity'. I won't go into extreme detail as this isn't the appropriate place, but with that in mind, all you need to know for now is that there's a reason beyond marketing schemes that men and women are 'assigned' roles.

It's natural order.

Ironically or not, reality is always against any LGBT argument. Religion is obvious, but look at nature. In every species there is a dominant counterpart to a more submissive one. And this applies directly to human beings. What the LGBT front has succeeding in doing for decades is turn this natural order on its head and make it a 'morally wrong' topic. Women are the more submissive counter part to men. This is a fact. This is not a bad thing. One protects the other, and the other procreates to keep the cycle of life going. Both are inherently invaluable to each other and their species.

So you can see why assigning gender roles to social construct is unscientific and just plain ignorant.

Holy... If this was fact, as you are claiming, there would be no dominant females, and there would be no submissive males.
Since, in reality, dominant females and submissive males exist, your argument is null and also void.

Your kind of backwards view of humanity is precisely why feminism and the LGBT movement are so crucial to the world.

It's natural order.

"Natural order" has been largely meaningless to human beings since we started making/wearing clothes, making/using tools, turning minerals into metals, mastering fire to turn night into day, etc. We ripped lightning from the hands of The Gods and stuck it in wires and bulbs so we didn't have to sleep and live by the dictates of seasons and celestial orbit. We're communicating at the speed of thought right now, using a fusion of a thousand technologies and "unnatural" advancements. We'll be rewriting our own DNA at will within most of our lifetimes. Where is "natural order" then, other than where it belongs - bent to will of those with the vision and temerity to do the bending?

Yes! Bob! This is what you should do an episode about. This post was fantastic. Copied and redistributed for posterity.

 

[Belaam]

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). ... There is no way in hell that EVERY single little boy I know is out playing war because of cultural constructs. Its not true.

I am the father to two daughters. Both of whom love swords. The eldest has slept with a foam sword since she was two years old to "fight off any monsters that attack me in my dreams" and have insisted on us buying a wide range of foam weaponry. At Thanksgiving this year, completely on their own, they both ran off to their rooms, brought out the foam armory and insisted on a mass melee. They have a huge dress-up box of pirate clothes, mermaid tails, armor, and ball gowns, all of which they wear. However, when they have male friends over, I have several times heard boys ask if it was "okay" for them to play with the more "girly" toys. The My Little Pony train seems to particularly throw them... it's a train, but it's also pink and purple. They clearly don't have a genetic disposition to worry about playing with pink toys, yet the boys are almost always both amazed that she has swords and unsure if they are "allowed" to play with some of her toys.

My mother has run a day-care for 30+ years and will invariably have boys who love playing dress up with the costume box. Years of being wrong when she guesses, "He's probably going to be gay" haven't stopped her from continuing to do so.

I don't know that it's possible to determine what is a genetic predisposition and what is a cultural predisposition. Certainly not for the small sample size of our immediate children.

 

[Psychobabble]

Pink as a feminine denoting color is a concept less than a hundred years old. And the concept that "feminine role = bad" by feminists is a concept just over fifty years old. Cultural ideas ebb and flow based more on fashion than out of any gender significance. High heels started as a male fashion. Mascara and perfumes have been used by both genders at various times in history. The Egyptians and Assyrians spring to mind. In fact the ancient Assyrian warriors rode into battle perfumed, rouged and powdered with immaculately oiled and curled hair and beards, and you were considered not to be manly if you didn't keep up your appearance.

So yeah anyway these silly denotations we use today are not the problem. The actual problem is the narrow minded groups of today that want to judge the entire gender issue based on a period of just a few decades rather than taking into account the entirety of human history.

 

[Billy D Williams]

@ Bob Pretty unfair to point at Hunger Games' villains but gloss over the main villain himself, Donald Sutherland as President Snow. Doubt anyone would accuse that lead villain of being feminine. Though he DOES keep a rose garden, I believe that carries entirely different literary allusions. It's like harping on Star Wars' villains and never mentioning Darth Vader.

I can only speak for the first movie cause I haven't seen the second or read any of the books, but in the first one Sutherland's character is hardly the main villain. He's in the movie for all of 3 minutes, so just because he is in charge of the organization doesn't make him the lead villian. That is like saying that The Emperor is the main antagonist of Star Wars.

 

[Hover Hand Mode]

I like the video, but I disagree with the core premise. While I do agree that perception of gender roles results in "pink aisles" and many of the things you might see in an Anita Sarkeesian video, it's not a linear cause-and-effect relationship. It's more of a loop. "Pink aisles" and the use of frilly, flowery, pink crap to sell products to girls and women reenforces the gender roles and stereotypes that led to it in the first place. I don't believe that criticism is misplaced when we focus on the products and media that lead us to believe certain things about women and what they like.

 

[Battenberg]

It's a good argument on a valid topic for sure but my word have you missed the point in The Hunger Games. The external appearance of the elite communities (i.e. district 1 and 2) and their obsession with wearing makeup and over preening themselves is not a representation of feminine qualities, it is a way they show off their wealth. Just like in reality those with the most money can afford the best in fashion and what better way to show off than to wear something as over the top as this:

It's a symbol of their obsession with material possessions and external appearances over true depth or substance. If you think those are exclusively feminine traits then you are likely part of the problem.

 

[lastjustice]

The Pink Aisle might not be the enemy ...but Pink Eye still is !!! Kill it now!!

 

[sweetylnumb]

I have no problem with girls playing with boy toys and vice-versa. But there is nothing wrong with "coding" a female or male marketed toy to a certain set of colors. It's years of cultural evolution that really is harming no one.

No, you mean it's not harming YOU. Many children are being "harmed" by the idea that they cant play with dolls becuase dolls are for girls, or vice versa. Many transgendered or homosexual/bisexual people are being harmed by the binary male/female separation.
I, for example, am "harmed" by disapproval from the rents when i wear large hoodies, becuase they arn't what females wear, apparently.


Try some empathy. I know its hard being a (probably white/straight) male. Hard to emphasize, that is.

You have the White Straight Male correct.
However, I am married to a Bi-woman who is active in the LBTG community, and I have hair longer than most of my female co-workers (and have had it this long for most of my life). I'm far from your typical straight/white male.

Society does not tell people they can or cannot play with dolls. Making things a certain color does not force anyone not to buy them. Acceptance comes from within, not without. If someone is comfortable in the way they are and what they choose to do, they will be happy.

Obviously you don't understand psychology and marketing. The industry is saturated with images and design choices which link female things to female and vice versa. No'one SAYS you cant play with girls toys, but both the adults around you and the store and toys themselves plant that idea in your mind. Ignoring and denying it doesn't make it go away.

And saying people should just harden up and accept themselves doesn't work. Especially with children who are very malleable.

Also, ok, you have long hair and a bisexual partner. Very original. Not saying its bad to be normel/plain/whatever, just suggesting that you might not get the best view of everything.

 

[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, or is it free to everybody, including people who don't have western values? Do they have the right to bend the will to their vision, or is this "bending of will" a right that only occidental countries are allowed to have?

I only ask because too often it seems like some people are more than happy in wanting to mimic Mao Zedong's[footnote]To clarify, I'm not saying that people want to mimic Mao's violence towards innocent people, just his attitude towards traditional Chinese culture.[/footnote] "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"?

 

[Something Amyss]

I went into this and the first part of the video with the problem that people rarely (if ever) claim that pink itself is the problem, and I stand by that. However, the greater context here is important and I do appreciate that. It's interesting that, in making strong female characters, we still go on to portray everything feminine as bad, which is kind of the problem in the first place. Though at least women are getting some exposure.

 

[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.

This is how it starts but its not invalid. Not wanting a man to dress your girl is.. well its just plain NORMAL not wanting strange men that intimate when you're just there to buy stuff! As is some female and male grouping and emulation.

Sure, sure, I get that... but do you freak out if the opposite gender shows up and assists you at a retail store in finding pants? Shoes? A hat?
This is what ticks me off. I get people getting weirded out if I tried in intimate apparel, but I show them the article, I say I'll be available to help and will check back. And this freaks them out. I'm not stripping anyone down and dressing them.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Okay, I haven't watched the video, and I don't want to watch the video because I'm sick of Bob drum beating this issue. I just want to comment on all the people just nodding their heads with an argument he made that feminine is seen as evil... What the fudge media have any of you been freaking watching for the last 20 years?! You're going to just look at The Penguin in Batman while ignoring Killer Croc? I don't even feel like listing off more examples, this should be flipping obvious to every single person here! Even in DBZ, Frieza's final form at full power is super muscular and testosterone filled. Is there something that's in the video that people aren't talking about here?

 

[CymbaIine]

That's actually quite an offensive way to it. I appreciate that you firmly stand on the side of 'vanity is bad', but plenty of accredited feminists do not. MovieBob's intelligence should not be pulled into question on this point. The main reason why the 'vanity is bad' argument is problematic, is that 'it is OK to have fun'. If wearing make-up makes you happy, you should be allowed to do that, the same way that it's OK for me to play a round of FTL if I get enjoyment out of it. In that same instance, it is progressive to make short shrift of the attitude that 'video games are something for kids'. Even utilitarianism does away with functionality at the moment that it impedes on human happiness.

I didn't question his intelligence, he seems like an intelligent guy. He just doesn't seem to have a very good grasp on this particular issue.

I don't think "vanity is bad" and "video games are for kids" are at all equivocal. Who are the accredited feminists that disagree with me? I would be genuinely interested to read what they have to say.

Well, I would advise reading up on Lipstick Feminism in general, but if you're looking for specific writers, most prominent feminists actually take a stance along the lines of: society shouldn't expect women to conform to beauty standards, but women should be allowed to choose how they act and dress. Naomi Wolf springs to mind as a fairly prominent contemporary writer who holds this position.
The way in which 'vanity' and 'playing video games' are similar is that they're both personal choices that, in principle, shouldn't be prohibited by society. If you would want to limit that choice, you would need to prove that vanity is more damaging to society than taking away the personal happiness that someone derives from being vane.

Yeah I read The Beauty Myth at uni. Naomi Wolf certainly does not say vanity is good. I don't think women wearing make up is bad, but conditioning girls from a young age to think that make-up, hair dye, nail polish, a tan etc etc (and could literally go on for pages) is normal is a bad thing.