The Big Picture: Pink Is Not The Problem

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
nuttshell said:
Farther than stars said:
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

New member
Jul 4, 2011
119
0
0
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

New member
Aug 23, 2013
168
0
0
Farther than stars said:
nuttshell said:
Farther than stars said:
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

New member
Aug 11, 2013
201
0
0
Farther than stars said:
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

New member
Apr 16, 2011
1,061
0
0
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

New member
Jan 23, 2013
7
0
0
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.
 

Aitamen

New member
Dec 6, 2011
87
0
0
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.