They're two different care kits, in two different colours... perhaps I'm just missing it, but where do they indicate that the pink one is for girls and the blue one is for boys? Maybe each type of kit only comes in one colour, this photo doesn't suggest otherwise. I'm certainly not saying that gendered items don't exist, but I don't feel like this is an example of it. (Or at least, this photo isn't showing it very well.) I think someone is using their own assumptions about gendered colours here.

You know what struck me right away (and not about gender) is that both of these babies on the cards are white. I've only bought a couple 'congrats on your baby' cards and they never had photos of kids on them. But i have to wonder, were there/are there options for folks who aren't white? Interestingly i didn't notice that when the original post went up. Hmmm. My privilege is showing.

In reference to the argument that they don't say it is for girls blatantly so it can't be gendered is lazy thinking. Of course it is gendered. These two colors have been used to mean blue/boy and pink/girl for a very long time (though originally they were reversed :) ). The color pink is a clear symbol.

Those are two different kits with different names and different prices.  I find the blue one to be more gender neutral and the pink...well, most people wouldn't give a pink care kit to a mother of a baby boy.  And, correct me if I'm wrong but genetically there is a difference between boys and girls so gender is defined at conception. Sexuality differs from gender.  I think we have to be careful not to use these words interchangeably. 

Notice that the boys 'Kit' is a 'complete Healthcare Kit' and the girls a 'Deluxe Healthcare & Grooming Kit'. There is an increase of $5 for the girls with an 5 extra pieces in the kit as well.  So even thought the image of the baby is identical and indeed the same baby the contents of each kit must be gender specific and must cater to each stereotype.

I kind of like the fact that the "professionals" don't really care about the sex of the baby, it's only the shoppers that do. Hence the baby in the picture is the same, but the colours change.

What intrigues me is why a baby girl (pink - going by stereotypes) needs a hairbrush and a deluxe grooming kit, while the blue set for the boy has less parts and no brush...

I agree with Eschew that the blue/pink dichotomy is too meaningful in our cultural context for us to give the benefit of any doubt to the makers of these baby products. But if you need more data, check out the Safety 1st website: http://www.safety1st.com/usa/eng/SearchResults?txtSearch=kit&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0

Note that blue appears to be the default color of all "kit" products, and pink is the "for girls" option. We know they're intended for girls because the three pink kits appear under the "For Girls" menu tab. 

Note also that there's no special "For Boys" tab. Boys are the standard, and girls are the variation, is my reading of that absence. 

No blue "grooming" kit huh? 

The blue one says "complete healthcare kit" and the pink one says "deluxe healthcare and grooming kit." Way to socialize girls right form the beginning to be more preoccupied with "grooming" and physical appearance.

I am having trouble understanding the rage against safety 1st... They offer 2 kits for healthcare - one in blue and one in pink. They offer 2 kits for grooming - one in blue, one in pink. 

Is the real issue that Walmart CHOSE to buy the blue healthcare kit but not the blue grooming kit - and thus they are propagating stereotypes? Are we saying it is fundamentally wrong to offer "pink" packaging? Because I'm willing to bet if they didn't, they'd be getting bashed for NOT offering a range of colors... Is it that 'girls' get their own tab but boys do not? Because that is odd... but is probably a cost savings reality... if they made a "boys" tab and it was all blue - not sure that would add a lot of value. I would ask the group - what would the "right" answer be?  I tend to favor a neuro-anthrolopgy approach to understanding people and behaviors - some things are hard wired/genetic, some are influenced by culture... The reality is, our current culture and social norms are a reflection of desires created over time - and they are at least partially genetic. Have you read 'As nature made him" ... or I'm half way through a book by an evolutionary psychatrist named Gad Saad called "the consuming instinct" that speaks to some intersting evolutionary drivers behind behavior (it's a food for thought book - I don't agree with a lot of what he says - espically about women- but I do appreciate different POV's and like to stay open). My opinions have evolved over time - esp since having my own children. Anyone who argues that gender is purely a social construct (that we force pink upon our daughters) clearly has not spent time with young children... ask any mom - little boys are driven by something different than little girls. I was personally more of a tomboy growing up (perhaps because I had 2 brothers) - I had a physical aversion to the Barbie aisle my entire life ... and I am repeatedly horrified as my own daughters seek princess and barbies for play (though I have been successful in socializing them to enjoy playing in muddy creeks and watching superhero shows)One more comment on the packaging in question... I would point to trends in baby care - the durable goods (diaper bags, strollers, high chairs, bedroom decor) has walked away from these 2 colors because moms today don't like them - they like to maintain a more sophisticated look... so perhaps what Safety 1st should really be faulted for is being off trend. Also, to inject a little reality - as far as using the same baby for both packages... odds are, that's a cost savings effort. Usage rights for packaging photography tend to be very expensive. It's not a lack of caring... it's a financial decision. Esp when you are talking about such a young baby where gender is not obvious from the head shot.... 

Hear of TWINS? Idento One is same sex as Idento Two?
Who's genderizing now?
ha ha

All the blue=boy, pink=girl stuff has been beaten to death, I just want to know....what is in the grooming kit in addition to whatever's in the hygiene kit?  The grooming kit has 5 more items and initially, as a hypothetical parent I might go for that one just because "hey, more useful stuff," if a boy has pink stuff be damned, but honestly?  The only "grooming" item I could think of for babies are nail clippers and POSSIBLY a hair brush or comb, which are things that a boy baby would need just as much as a girl baby.  And indeed, neither would necessarily need the brush or comb, as hair length as babies has nothing to do with gender.  This is where it gets to "needlessly gendering babies."  I was assumed to be a boy as a baby, even though my mother and grandmother were a big fan of putting me in pink onesies and frilly dresses and the like.  Why?  Because I had short hair until I was nearly 2, and didn't have earrings.  But female babies aren't born with long hair and gold studs.  Babies' hair grows and falls out seemingly totally at random, and people pierce their babies' ears if they feel like it sometime after they're born.  To assume a baby with short hair or no earrings is a boy, or less commonly, a baby with long hair or earrings is a girl, is applying the assumption that babies operate like adults, when they're just biologically assorted poop machines.  If you care about the baby's sex so much, ask the parents, don't ask why the clearly male baby is wearing a pink dress.

Gee, I didn't know male babies were so perfect that they can transcend grooming practices. 
This is so gendered it's sickening. But that's not even my biggest concern.  My biggest issue is that the deluxe grooming kit for girls socialize them to be preoccupied with their appearance, while the grooming kit for boys intend them to be boys. In other words, boys are the standard while girls are the other. It's a bit sick to force gender norms on babies when they are too young to choose for themselves.     

Why is the hygiene kit cheaper for boys?

I love how the boy's kit is a "complete healthcare kit" (and cheaper) and the girl's is a "deluxe healthcare and grooming kit."

why cant we groom boys!? boys dont need to brush their hair? or clip their nails by the looks of it (i cant see a nail clippers in the "boys"..) this is just wrong on so many levels.. why not be all the same stuff, in the same package, all he same color!? 

So they are saying you dont brush your babies hair (as a boy) or cut his nails? uhm your gross. color and gender pisses me off. with so many people putting pink as a girls color, saying if a boy wears pink hes gay -______-