Comments on: Gendered Gifts Galore

By: CC

CC — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 22:36:07 +0000

“…in which marketers use the excuse of gift-giving to reinforce gender stereotypes…”

I would like to make a point here! I don’t think marketers are maliciously out to dichotomize the genders solely for the sake of hindering progress. If people DID buy pink Legos for their sons and nephews, they would probably market pink Legos to boys as well. I’m not saying that girls really do want nothing more than to play house etc, but I think it’s worth acknowledging that it must be mostly about capitalism and not necessarily just Keeping our Kids Away From The Queer.

By: Alex

Alex — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 22:31:20 +0000

Given the trends we usually see here–that men are Default People and women are a Special Case–it’s interesting that on Zazzle, the women’s section has the just plain “funny” and “outdoors” categories, while the men’s equivalent categories are specially labeled for men. I’m not familiar with Zazzle, and their home page isn’t coming up on the slow connection I’m using at the moment–is it a site aimed at women? I’d also be interested to know if any of the same gifts appear in the shared (80’s) or semi-shared (funny, outdoors) categories.

By: Linkurile săptămânii « Down the Rabbit Hole

Linkurile săptămânii « Down the Rabbit Hole — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 09:18:53 +0000

[…] – timpul iubirii şi al… cadourilor genizate. Mai multe […]

By: Marc Singer

Marc Singer — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:54:13 +0000

Agghh! Why do people insist on dividing us so rigidly into gender roles (not to mention ethnic roles and other boxes)? Thank you for showing the latest examples.

Y’know what would be neat? If boys could enjoy “princess” toys and girls could enjoy “explorer” toys without being tagged & bagged for their choices.

As the character Cordy said on “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” (a gender-defying show itself): “Can’t I have layers?” I’d like to have layers, and I want my kids to have layers, too!

By: The History Enthusiast

The History Enthusiast — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:19:41 +0000

When “girl” Legos first came out (sometime in the 1990s) I was completely confused as to why anyone would actually purchase them. My younger sister and I saw them advertised and thought, “You can’t build anything!” We liked the “regular” Legos because they gave us a chance to be creative, and both of us were HUGE Legos fans as children. My favorites were the spaceships and then when I was a bit older, the pirate stuff. The idea that those toys were only for boys never would’ve dawned on either of us as children, but then, I think that in some ways children today are really being indoctrinated with these sexist divisions in a more pervasive way.

By: Cactus Wren

Cactus Wren — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:22:38 +0000

If you examine the actual toys in the “Belville” section, you’ll notice two things:

1. There are so very few of them. There are only five “Belville” products listed on the site. One of them is a lunchbox.

2. They involve almost no actual building. Which I thought was, after all, what you do with Legos.

By: Cactus Wren

Cactus Wren — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 11:14:19 +0000

B-) Your careful, detailed, point-by-point refutation is noted. B-D B-D B-D

By: junequest

junequest — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 02:21:16 +0000

And I’m a female geek, and I’m kind of offended that women can’t even get geek t-shirts!

By: Sally

Sally — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:07:58 +0000

What a logically interesting point. Thank you for your intelligent, considered input to a widely-recognised social-scientific debate.

By: Ed

Ed — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 08:53:53 +0000

This is a complete load of wank.

You lot really need to get a fucking life.

By: E

Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:18:37 +0000

No, you’re right. There are two things going on here. Boys are people and girls are separate kinds of people. And we also have to keep boys from being too girly. Policing masculinity starts really early.

By: yoko_vibe

yoko_vibe — Sat, 26 Dec 2009 02:39:00 +0000

I’m a long-term reader of this blog – rarely read the comments, so probably this point has been made before. But in some cases, with the whole ‘toy section 4 girls’ idea, I never interpreted it as ‘all the other toys are, by default, for boys’. Particularly on that Lego site, I interpret that the toys are, by default, for boys and girls equally, while there’s a small sub-set of toys that boys would not be allowed to be interested in – too girly. In a way, it’s like the other way around – it’s socially acceptable for girls to like any toys, while boys must be kept away from ‘girl’s toys’.

Mind you, I still see the points you’re making; I just think that part could be interpreted the opposite way.

By: The History Enthusiast

The History Enthusiast — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:52:14 +0000

I’m a female historian and I’m offended that the “historian” shirts are only in the men’s section! Of course, if they define history as the story of great white men, then I suppose I don’t fit in, seeing as I study African-American history and women’s history. To many history buffs, those fields aren’t really the *important* history…what really matters is how white d00ds manage to start wars and blow stuff up.

By: Rebekah

Rebekah — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:40:16 +0000

Same. Books are essentially the only gifts I give and the only gifts I ask for.

By: tree

tree — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:31:03 +0000

i was coming here to say the exact same thing. dear cod, how awful.

something else i find ~~kind of horrifying~~ interesting is how rarely one sees books promoted as gift options for any gender. i’ve been requesting books as gifts since i learned to read, basically. and since i’m never the only person in any bookstore i visit, i can only conclude i’m not the only one.