People Are Sharing Unnecessarily Gendered Products To Show How Wrong And Stupid It Is (30 Pics)
What do you look for when you’re choosing a product? Let’s say the product is something essential but banal, for example, a toothbrush. Do you want it to work how it’s supposed to and be comfortable to use? Obviously. Do you want it to be a color you like? Sure. Admittedly not relevant to how it works, but you do see it several times a day, after all. Do you want it to make you feel like a real man or a woman?
Probably not what most of us think of while we’re brushing our teeth every morning, but apparently, advertisers say yes. Here are some products that we don’t think anyone asked for gendered versions of, as found by people on Twitter.
This post may include affiliate links.
The concept is good, but it should still be a family game. No need to make it just for girls.
Nobody is saying that selling things in a variety of designs is bad—people have different likes and dislikes and we would be bored if everything only came in brown. But is it any wonder why so many girls end up resenting pink and floral patterns when that’s the one look that advertisements and toy packaging tell them they should be choosing, while boys are encouraged to play with toys in red, green, black, and pretty much every other color?
For adults, who have had their whole lives to get to know their own preferences, it seems shallow and infantilizing. And when design comes at the expense of functionality, like pink glue or more fragile razors, it goes from uncomfortable to insulting.
Finally a product for me, I've had enough of using men's shampoo, apricots have delicate hair you know. We need specially formulated shampoos :D
Then there’s the opposite phenomenon, when marketers think things should be designated “for men” because apparently it’s not manly in the first place to use soap, eat bread, or have a cup of tea (chili in tea... I didn't know there was something effeminate about drinking things that taste good and don’t hurt.)
To be fair, some products are gendered because of average shape and size measurements or nutritional requirements based on sex. Even in those cases, though, what do we get out of labeling them “for men” or “for women” before said sizing or nutritional benefits? That just confuses and embarrasses people whose needs fall outside of those averages, because our proportions and chemistry vary a lot even within the biological categories of male and female. Further polarizing products by putting nuts and bolts or flowers and glitter on the package adds another uncomfortable layer by conflating our personalities and likes with those physical parameters.
This one doesn’t specifically say any gender. There is nothing wrong with having a choice of pink plane or blue plane. Some people (whether girl or boy like pink and others like blue).
The American Marketing Association has observed that younger consumers are beginning to scoff at advertising that leans on gender, and recommends that brands focus on advertising “what a product is for rather than whom it is for.”
They say that brands could learn more about their consumer base’s habits and do better business by removing gendered marketing that could sway consumers away from products not traditionally associated with their gender, and embracing marketing that presents their products in a positive light for any consumer.
Honestly, this isn't gendered, this is just two different types of products, with different characters/design.
These are just different colors, not gender-oriented. Am I not seeing something?
The bible is one of the most misogynistic books on the planet. It states that a women who has a female child is twice as unclean as a woman that has a male child. It says that if a woman is raped and they are found, the rapist must pay the father some shekels and they must be married. I don't know many women that want to marry their rapist. Just a sickening, disgusting anti-woman book. Evil garbage filth.
This isn't really gendered it's colored. Only if you assign blue to boys and pink to girls can you say it's really gendered. As it doesn't say 'for boys' or 'for girls' on the packaging. I would've probably liked this as a child.
Well, let's just say it's probably because "I went through a whole box of tissues during that movie" means something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT for men and women.
Cards against humanity brought out the “for her” set as a jab at the “pink tax”. Maybe have a read up on it.
Again, I don't really think this is gendered...? Some kids like to play with the rockets and planes while others like to play with the astronauts. I think it's really cool that there's a female astronaut doll and nowhere does it say that it's for girls or that the other one is for boys
Every person who has never found their name printed on a souvenir is really ticked at Eetu right now.
I have a boy and two girls, and we always buy only "boys" ones because they have cooler toys.
When I played Monopoly ages ago, it had tiny player pieces: a dog, racecar, hat, iron and others. I can't remember playing as a woman ( or man)
Where does it say it’s for guys? it says “the Arsenal ultimate grooming set”. Arsenal is another term for an array of services/equipment used for a certain purpose. Nothing to do with gender.
There are men and women vitamins and protein powders etc because fact is men and women often have differing nutritional needs.
I hate gendered products. "For her" has extra iron in it. Just label it "with extra iron" - does the same trick. If you don't know why the extra iron would be necessary, the gendered version won't be very appealing to you either!
So much pink it makes me want to throw up. Also, Gillette razor blades, female ones being more expensive and easier to dull. We will never move as a society.
I've been using men's razors all my life. Tried a couple marketed towards women a couple times and immediately threw them out. They were useless!
Load More Replies...
Historically, pink for girls and blue for boys wasn’t the norm until post-WWII retail in the US. Originally, it was the other way around: “For example, the June 1918 issue of the Infant's Department, a trade magazine for baby clothes manufacturers, said: ‘There has been a great diversity of opinion on this subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. 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.’” See: https://www.livescience.com/22037-pink-girls-blue-boys.html
Yep. Gendered colours are completely a social construct. Which is part of what makes it so ridiculous. If we want to offer different colours for products, that's fine, but FFS, don't gender them.
Load More Replies...
For everyone determined to be so regressive they have to argue every entry on this post: You aren't coming off like a cool, intelligent rebel. You give the impression of either a Martian anthropologist trying to understand "hoo-mahns," a giant numpty who can barely recognize shapes, or someone who has lived under a rock in Antarctica for 70 years. Just accept that gendered marketing is a thing and that we *all* hate it. Here's a really easy test: If those products are "just different colors," how many of you would buy a pink item as a gift for a male work supervisor you didn't know well? How many of you would give a pink item at a boy's baby shower if you didn't know the family well?
So much pink it makes me want to throw up. Also, Gillette razor blades, female ones being more expensive and easier to dull. We will never move as a society.
I've been using men's razors all my life. Tried a couple marketed towards women a couple times and immediately threw them out. They were useless!
Load More Replies... Historically, pink for girls and blue for boys wasn’t the norm until post-WWII retail in the US. Originally, it was the other way around: “For example, the June 1918 issue of the Infant's Department, a trade magazine for baby clothes manufacturers, said: ‘There has been a great diversity of opinion on this subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. 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.’” See: https://www.livescience.com/22037-pink-girls-blue-boys.html
Yep. Gendered colours are completely a social construct. Which is part of what makes it so ridiculous. If we want to offer different colours for products, that's fine, but FFS, don't gender them.
Load More Replies... For everyone determined to be so regressive they have to argue every entry on this post: You aren't coming off like a cool, intelligent rebel. You give the impression of either a Martian anthropologist trying to understand "hoo-mahns," a giant numpty who can barely recognize shapes, or someone who has lived under a rock in Antarctica for 70 years. Just accept that gendered marketing is a thing and that we *all* hate it. Here's a really easy test: If those products are "just different colors," how many of you would buy a pink item as a gift for a male work supervisor you didn't know well? How many of you would give a pink item at a boy's baby shower if you didn't know the family well?
