What's up with that? Was it Toys R Us for choosing pink to show the inferior versions of each product? Or was it Edu-Science who only makes their inferior products IN pink? I tried going to the Edu-Science website but was unsuccessful in finding my answer.

I used to work for Toys, and this is their store brand. And this little thing was one of several that drove me nuts. I think if my parents had given me a pink telescope as a kid I would have thrown a fit.

Perhaps it's pink to appeal to younger kids, hence the lower power?

I'm not defending Toys R Us but the print ad isn't complete. The pink telescope and microscope are offensive but Toys R Us does sell identical products in black on their web site so it isn't that the pink products are less powerful than the other products they sell.

The irony is, the less powerful magnifications actually have better image quality, because resolution is dependent upon the the size of the objective lens, thus smaller magnifications equal to better image quality. All you'll see with the bigger magnifications is fuzziness. I doubt that's why the pink ones are "lesser," though.

Tensity, I think you need to check your optics if all you see is fuzziness at higher magnifications.

The whole "pink for girls" thing IS utterly stupid, but as others have pointed out, they do sell the same products in pink and black/grey versions. I'd guess some cubicle drone just figured it was good to showcase that one model also comes in "pink for girls", rather than "girls don't need as good of a 'scope." Not that the lack of thought that went into it is not a bad thing in and of itself.

I agree, pink for girls as a gender norm is silly, but others don't see it as a problem, or see why it should be a problem in how it engenders inferiority/superiority.

My point is the irony of the girls' telescope actually being better. Hubble's optics are going to be better than Toys R Us's, but comparing apples to apples, after a certain threshold, magnification is useless except for dim and/or fuzzy images. That's just optical science.

Possibly they meant to make the one they think they'll sell least of (the 'girl' one) the cheapest.

I was a microbiology major many years ago, and I think I can explain the differences in magnifying power in these microscopes: Females have better vision. Males need the extra magnification.

If you disagree, haven't you ever heard the phrase "stop or you'll go blind"?

:) Happy Holidays!

In fairness to Toys R Us, I've known parents who wouldn't think of buying science toys for their daughters AT ALL. There are a lot of parents afflicted with the "princess" mentality when it comes to little girls. As ghastly as it is, having pink options available increases the odds that at least some of them will end up being given as presents to children who would otherwise never get them.

Or maybe it's part of the "aestheticly pleasing vs. powerful"? (think toasters/blenders/refrigerators/etc) If I want the "good stuff" usually that only comes in "black/chrome". The pink was a poor marketing choice. At least they weren't pink v. blue...

I sent in the above photo - I'm a woman by the way ;)

And as I see it, arguing the about the resolution of the lens is beside the point. As a mother of a daughter looking at this ad I was disappointed. Thousands of copies of this circular with this message are out there floating around. If they have stronger versions of this product in pink - you wouldn't know it from the ad.

My daughter is 2 1/2 and I'm sick and tired of fighting the pink war and the plastic war and the "educational DVD" war. Blech. I don't know why I even looked in the catalog at all.

I'm thinking that it may be a way to push the more expensive versions and it all goes back to the whole male as default thing.

The people who are buying a scope for their daughters will not be turned off by the black/grey color scheme and will feel free to purchase any scope from the least expensive to the most expensive.

People buying a scope for their sons will be turned off by the pink ones, and will therefore be willing to spring an extra ten bucks rather than risk being sullied by girly things. This means that the group marketers see as most likely to buy scopes (boys) can be prevented from buying the least expensive versions by simply making them pink.

So rather than just all-out-sexism, it is greed using and promoting sexism to squeeze more money out of the masses.
Heartwarming.

Devil's advocate here. Looking at the ad, it appears that a different manufacturer made the pink models from the other models. So even though Toys R Us may be perpetuating a possible stereotype, I'd place more blame with the manufacturers who researched the market and came up with the underpowered, overprettied devices. However, it seems likely ... See Morethat some well intentioned marketing drone said "let's make pink devices that will be more attractive to girls, potentially attracting girls to male dominated scientific fields!" Then his director says, "good idea, but it sounds risky. Let's price it low!" Then quality is sacrificed with an underpowered scope. Then someone rips Toys R Us' toenails out. On Christmas!!!

This is just nitpicking.

Ok, maybe I am out of sync with American culture (being from Germany), but what went through my mind first was: "WTF, a pink telescope? Why would you do that?" Luckily, when I was a little girl, toys didn't seem to be gendered as much as they are today – obvious examples like Barbie excepted.

Actually, I have to agree with Leigh, it seems to be a tough job fighting the 'pink wave', even over here. My brother-in-law (I heart that guy!) was utterly taken aback when my mother gave my niece a pink bobby-car for Christmas. The reasoning? My nephew already has the standard red one and she couldn't have possibly given my niece a blue or green one. Becuse 'that wouldn't fit'. Oh, are you being serious, mum?

I hate hate hate that some colours apparently aren't for both genders. When she turns four, she'll get wooden toy-sword. And that will be brown and just as powerful as the one her brother got. Full stop.

I wish there was pricing info on the Ad. Another way to look at the ad is that poorer people with a male child are out of luck, cause there is no entry-level option for boys.

Hmm...I thought the pink ones were for boys.

'why a pink telescope' was my ask too?
my daughter don't see black toy as an EXCLUSIVELY male toy. actually she prefers.
why pink is female, anyway?

Some girls actually just like pink, it's always been my favourite colour growing up and I would have loved having cool things like that in my favourite colour. I think more colour options should be available with things though.

Some girls actually just like pink, it's always been my favourite colour growing up and I would have loved having cool things like that in my favourite colour. I think more colour options should be available with things though.

After having two step-ladders stolen from my garage within a couple of weeks, I came up with an excellent plan: I painted the next one pink, and had no 'takers'. Back at-cha, guys.

Ehh, I've noticed the color coding these days over toys. I didn't grow up with this sort of thing, so I find it a bit queer. It nearly twists my mind trying to comprehend it. I personally like pastels and pink is one of the colors I prefer, since it makes me appear less sickly ^_^ But does that make me any less manly? I guess only in the mind of crazy americans this sort of thing matters -_-

I'd place more blame with the manufacturers chatiw who researched the carbonite market and came up with the underpowered, overprettied devices. However, it seems likely