-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
80 Years of Subtle Sexism
- Thread starter Magrat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- feminism sexism womens rights
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
Did you read those reviews ? People made funny comments about how stupid it was to market a pen "for women." They didn't buy it
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
Please forgive my misunderstanding that quoting my posts and replying to them was a response to my comments.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 64,251
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
What, I can't talk with you about anything other than you?
How typically female.
You are such a man!
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
What, I can't talk with you about anything other than you?
How typically female.
You are such a man!
Get a room...
truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
Did you read those reviews ? People made funny comments about how stupid it was to market a pen "for women." They didn't buy it
I know, you know what is stupider than marketing a pen for women? Women who buy it and then pretend they had no choice in the matter and complain because it cost more than the 'male version" because of sexism.
The reviews are amusing. But women actually buy this kind of stuff all the time. You can't blame the companies for tapping into the market.
I pointed out the FEMALE CANE in the other post. Are you blind to the nonsense?
What's missing here is that spending money feels good. Functionality is not the sole driver of perceived value. What I buy does help define me to myself. I will spend more, and happily do so, for products that connect well with my self image.
And yes, I drive that car because I have a small penis. Very small. Much smaller than a housecat.
Ugg: "Why don't you just wear a sheep's skin coat like the rest of us? They are pretty easy to make and plenty warm. Plus, you aren't in any danger killing a sheep."
Oog: "Because the bear skin reflects my manly nature. It's who I am inside."
Ugg: "Small penis?"
Oog: "Quit looking at my junk!"
And yes, I drive that car because I have a small penis. Very small. Much smaller than a housecat.
Ugg: "Why don't you just wear a sheep's skin coat like the rest of us? They are pretty easy to make and plenty warm. Plus, you aren't in any danger killing a sheep."
Oog: "Because the bear skin reflects my manly nature. It's who I am inside."
Ugg: "Small penis?"
Oog: "Quit looking at my junk!"
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Stealing.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
You know what colour is almost universally more expensive? Black. On a whole lot of stuff, there's anywhere from a 1% to 10% markup to get it in black. It's a worldwide oppression of Goths, I say.
Interesting that certain people keep pointing out the differences in prices between products featuring licensed properties. Of course there is going to be a difference in price, because of the difference in licensing costs. It has been said before, but deserves to be said again. A "Dora the Explorer" shoe vs. an identically-constructed "Spiderman" shoe? Dora is going to be cheaper, because Spiderman is a much more popular and recognizable brand. Disney vs. Nickelodeon? Nick's going to come up cheaper here, because Disney is more recognizable worldwide, and Disney are seriously money-grubbing bastards who could squeeze blood from a stone. And the moment you stick Barbie on something you're increasing the price by a ridiculous degree just for the licensing costs of one of the world's most recognizable brands.
Oh, and looking back a bit, want to know what's killing Barbie's sales? It's not so much "sexism awareness", the problems with Barbie's proportions are old hat, and no less realistic than the vast majority of male or female toys on the market (Bratz/Monster High anyone?). It's not even whatever flash-in-the-pan Disney is marketing these days (Frozen is still hot, I think). It's Hasbro's My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Pastel ponies are destroying Mattel these days; and no body image issues to deal with. (Unless you're a pony, then it might seem a bit unrealistically proportioned and coloured, I mean seriously, what pony can live up to those humongous eyes and painfully extreme cuteness?)
These sorts of comparisons are generally specious, and superficial at best; and ignore common market realities.
Also funny how people are focused on the last few centuries in the UK as epitomizing the status of women in general. Go back a few more and look at the status of women in the Celtic and Scandinavian communities that preceded them. Look at the status of women across the rest of the continent in the contemporary period. Things vary, different peoples have had different cultural standards throughout history.
Assuming it's true, though, that women have been universally oppressed in every culture throughout history (which is far from the truth), why is that? Why has that been so universally true? What is the reason for it? There are only two conclusions that can be reasonably drawn, men are inherently evil and women are inherently victims; or that there are certain unavoidable biological necessities that come into play.
(Oh, and as an aside, someone brought up the issue of Greek statuary in an earlier post regarding body image, as if they were intended to represent an ideal female form. That's nonsense for the most part. The Greeks in general did not idealize females; the forms they used were for their ability to showcase the sculptor's talent in depicting the drapery of the clothing.)
Interesting that certain people keep pointing out the differences in prices between products featuring licensed properties. Of course there is going to be a difference in price, because of the difference in licensing costs. It has been said before, but deserves to be said again. A "Dora the Explorer" shoe vs. an identically-constructed "Spiderman" shoe? Dora is going to be cheaper, because Spiderman is a much more popular and recognizable brand. Disney vs. Nickelodeon? Nick's going to come up cheaper here, because Disney is more recognizable worldwide, and Disney are seriously money-grubbing bastards who could squeeze blood from a stone. And the moment you stick Barbie on something you're increasing the price by a ridiculous degree just for the licensing costs of one of the world's most recognizable brands.
Oh, and looking back a bit, want to know what's killing Barbie's sales? It's not so much "sexism awareness", the problems with Barbie's proportions are old hat, and no less realistic than the vast majority of male or female toys on the market (Bratz/Monster High anyone?). It's not even whatever flash-in-the-pan Disney is marketing these days (Frozen is still hot, I think). It's Hasbro's My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Pastel ponies are destroying Mattel these days; and no body image issues to deal with. (Unless you're a pony, then it might seem a bit unrealistically proportioned and coloured, I mean seriously, what pony can live up to those humongous eyes and painfully extreme cuteness?)
These sorts of comparisons are generally specious, and superficial at best; and ignore common market realities.
Also funny how people are focused on the last few centuries in the UK as epitomizing the status of women in general. Go back a few more and look at the status of women in the Celtic and Scandinavian communities that preceded them. Look at the status of women across the rest of the continent in the contemporary period. Things vary, different peoples have had different cultural standards throughout history.
Assuming it's true, though, that women have been universally oppressed in every culture throughout history (which is far from the truth), why is that? Why has that been so universally true? What is the reason for it? There are only two conclusions that can be reasonably drawn, men are inherently evil and women are inherently victims; or that there are certain unavoidable biological necessities that come into play.
(Oh, and as an aside, someone brought up the issue of Greek statuary in an earlier post regarding body image, as if they were intended to represent an ideal female form. That's nonsense for the most part. The Greeks in general did not idealize females; the forms they used were for their ability to showcase the sculptor's talent in depicting the drapery of the clothing.)
truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
Good points all, I do want to note that I pointed out that there was a reason the Spiderman shoes were more expensive, and it wasn't sexism. (I didn't clarify it the way you did because I assumed it would be misunderstood.)
LOL and yeah black does seem to cost more.
The other part of the issue is women and their body issue needs. For example, (as I mentioned before,) I have three sons and once they got older I was able to wear their coats. They have great coats, but they are boxy. I don't care but I know a lot of women want to look curvy and sexy and pretty so they want fitted coats.
I also wear men's underwear on a regular basis because I like how it's thicker than women's underwear. I can only imagine if it was cheaper (it's not) how it would be deemed sexist.
The reason women's clothing can sometimes cost more is because fitted clothing takes more time to make.
LOL and yeah black does seem to cost more.
The other part of the issue is women and their body issue needs. For example, (as I mentioned before,) I have three sons and once they got older I was able to wear their coats. They have great coats, but they are boxy. I don't care but I know a lot of women want to look curvy and sexy and pretty so they want fitted coats.
I also wear men's underwear on a regular basis because I like how it's thicker than women's underwear. I can only imagine if it was cheaper (it's not) how it would be deemed sexist.
The reason women's clothing can sometimes cost more is because fitted clothing takes more time to make.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Yes. There is considerably more variation in the fit of women's clothing than of men's; and it's far more tailoured to be form-fitting. A great example is the difference in the cut of standard men's tshirts, and the women's, aka "babydoll", style. The former is cut very square, with no appreciable tailouring, while the latter is very rounded, and tailoured in an "hourglass" shape to fit more tightly in the lower-chest and waist.
Interestingly, it's generally considered far more acceptable for a woman to wear "men's" untailored clothing, than it is for men to wear "women's" tailoured clothing, regardless of body shape.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Speaking as a man who just bought jeans, all these "cuts" and "fits" are annoying, if not outright enraging. What happened to just "jeans"? I need jeans, I buy jeans. One kind. Now there are slim fits and low rise and boot cut and relaxed and comfort-fit and tailored and authentic and classic and contoured and semicontoured and god knows what. Even Wranglers, long the last holdout of sanity in a field of excessive options, now has pages and pages of different kinds of jeans. It's horrible! I just want normal jeans. Two legs. A waist. Nothing that rises to my nipples or descends to my crotch. I don't need special shapes for legs, my legs are leg-shaped. It makes me ANGRY!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!
Magrat
Mrs. Rincewind
Female cane as in, it has feminine decoration. They come with designs and stuff. I have a flowered one. If they come in designs I'm going to buy the design I like, why wouldn't I? I'm not going to intentionally buy stuff I don't like, that's silly.
I walk with forearm crutches. My current ones are very plain, but I had hot pink arm pads on my last set. If I have to use this stuff all day long, every day, I want to like it.
I'm sure a manly man wouldn't care if his cane was hot pink, right?
P.s., I don't believe there was a demand for bic for women, nor do know believe they sell very many compared to your ordinary pen. I know lots of non-men who use ordinary pens just fine.
truethat
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2007
- Messages
- 13,389
Sweetie you are still missing the point. The functionality of a male cane is a wooden one. When you go to the website for canes and you click under women's canes, the "male cane" is right there as the first option.
You yourself say you like the other one because it's pretty. You like the flowered design. The manufacturer and business knows that you'd PREFER the flowered design, so you'd be willing to PAY MORE for it than the plain one. Even though functionally they are exactly the same.
That's not SEXISM. That's BUSINESS.
Just like a woman who wants to make her office space pretty because she sits in it every damn day, and is willing to buy a pink or purple pen.
The question I'm asking you is why you are saying this is Subtle Sexism and a "PINK TAX" that women are forced with NO CHOICE (as you said) to pay more for the same object.
You chose to pay for the flowered cane. The regular brown one is right there for sale. So why did you spend more when you didn't have to?
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
My grandma has a tiger-print cane. It looks super pimp when she uses it while wearing her purple velour track suit. "I'm not sure what she means by it, but your cousin says I am 'styling' in this outfit. What do you think?" Damn straight, Grandma.
As for me, if I ever need a cane I'm going straight to a replica of Jafar's snake cane from Aladdin, I don't care how much it will cost. I'll have it custom built so the eyes are red LEDs.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Agreed; business, not sexism.
That's why some of us pay more for black; because we lose Goth points otherwise, and have to sit in the crappy corner of the club getting sneered at by the spooky elite.
You (the generic "you") are not paying more because of sexism, you're paying more because of fashion. And that is hardly unique to women. You can find "men's" canes with elaborate decorations (flame prints, wolf's head or skull topper, etc.) as well, and they cost more. Is that sexist against men? Nope, that's just the price of fashion.