Would it be possible to put this very large image behind a cut?

Yep, got to make sure men know what is acceptably masculine and what isn't. If a man carried the wrong water bottle and was beaten by gay-bashing thugs, he could always sue the company for not clearly marking it "women's", you know.

This annoys me.

Non-sarcastic question here: Would this be more or less annoying if the water bottles that were listed for both men and women were labeled "water bottles," and the remainder labeled "women's water bottles?" (As in the recent post about unmarked male things and marked female things.)

Or is the whole idea that men and women are so very different that they need *different water bottles* so absurdly stupid that it can't be redeemed? (My vote)

OH! BONUS! I just noticed the text at the top of each section is different, even though they are ostensibly the exact same model of water bottle and in many cases have the same paint jobs.

...

Men: Swiss craftmanship. Durable performance. These classic reusable bottles will help keep you hydrated no matter what life throws at you.

Women: A fresh, fun blend of color and style. These beautiful reusable bottles are fashionable and functional. Ready for your next adventure or as an everyday accessory.

...

ARGH. What is with this!? Why is fashion supposed to be so central to anything a woman does? Why aren't women supposed to care about quality or functionality except as a nice bonus to their fashion accessories? (And why did this website decide I'm not allowed to buy a "Hello Kitty" water bottle? Heh.)

It's all gender binaries and masculinity being appropriate for women (projecting masculine strength) but femininity inappropriate for men as it undermines masculinity (femininity displays weakness). At least that's how I see it (I know this gets talked about all the time on here..). Consumerism and gender distinctions constrains men's choices in that society is still centred around masculine= strong feminine = weak; if men want to maintain the dominance and authority they hold in society, they are constrained from appearing feminine. Not a huge price to pay, in the grand scheme of control and power dynamics..

Or it could be done just to sell more water bottles. Different words work better at appealing to the different sexes. Consumerism is all about targeting the specific set of people that you want to sell to. Clothing stores are separated into mens and womans clothing. Personally, I don't see a problem with just having "water bottles", but the way they do it here might help them sell more. If it does, I can't say as I blame them.

Okay - off topic and not that insightful...but 77 DIFFERENT styles?! Wow. And I thought I had it tough when I had to choose from six different "Klean Kanteen" colors.

Funny, I don't feel particularly ‘constrained’ or ‘pushed away’ at all by these choices, even though I'm male. I suppose even if it really mattered to me, which it doesn't, I'd still be able to simply choose to buy the design I wanted. And that's kind of the point; no one is forced into engendering a stereotype here. They're merely being shown the designs more likely to appeal to people of their gender, and if say a man knows that he will enjoy, as you call them, ‘girly’ designs, he could with very little effort click and browse those designs. How is that in any way some serious constraint?

wow. this blog is ridiculous. i don't even know what to say....

who cares. coming from a guys perspective i'm not too mad that they're not selling flowery bottles in the men's section. the company is simply catagorizing the bottles into what they think men and women will want. and if a guy wants to buy from the woman's section then he can, it's not like they're making men buy men bottles and women buy woman bottles. you guys are all overthinking this. get a life.

Interesting that "male pattern" bottles are still displayed to women.

Is the problem the constrainment of choice though, or that the way to signal our gender is through consumer purchasing?

SIGG bottles notwithstanding, I also don't like how patriarchy constrains my choices in how I relate to other people!

jeez.. get a life and worry about other things in life.. this is a pretty stupid and pointless blog..

it is pretty stupid.. some things in life are pretty stupid.. and this is one of them..

While I think the underlying point of the post as a good and important one, I wonder how much having 58 product choices instead of 77 is really a constraint in any practical and non-trivial sense? In a non-trivial way my maleness may limit, say, my choice of careers and that's a problem. This, I'm not sure - if it was 75 versus 77 would it matter? 65 versus 77? At what point does it move from a non-significant, random difference to a constraining one?

Where did this get linked to that is full of mansplainers who want to come and let us know not to worry our pretty little heads about how advertising works?

Don't you feel like all of these commenters are actually the same person?

The use of "patriarchy" here implies a grievance against the status quo. The author has chosen language that makes him a victim of other people's choices. To present oneself as a victim rarely attracts goodwill from people who do not identify as fellow victims.

I see people acting out roles as prey, predators, and audience in the comment section. Today, I choose to be a spectator.

Simone, I think I kind of love you.

why is this an example of patriarchy and not misandry?

Hey, this was in response to a comment so offensive that even the authors here felt compelled to take it down. It's not just a man-hating non sequitur.

I still can't get over trying to sell bottles along gender lines.

Like men would go, "Hmm, there are dozens of bottle choices here... OMG, some of them have flowers on them. I'm never shopping here again!!!1!!"

I may be feeding the trolls here, and expressing the bleeding obvious, but the reason we say this is a small example of patriarchial thinking rather than misandry is because of the following mindset:

"We must protect the menz from anything that is feminine! It will disturb their delicate -sorry, MANLY!- sensibilities. They may feel demeaned! In a manly way!"

There is no indication that the marketers hate men. They obviously think that displaying "feminine" products to men is risky.

little correction para 3... my bad.

on the flipside, there is no man's movement pushin to breakdown traditional male roles. so with no man's movement sayin why can’t a man do... i dont know whatever is a traditional womens job...

What's with the man-hating non-sequitur?

Yikes, this thread sure blew up with trolls.

I'll go back to a very early comment I read, because it's something I've been hashing out on my own lately and hadn't ever seen someone else write it out.

"Consumerism and gender distinctions constrains men’s choices in that society is still centred around masculine= strong feminine = weak; if men want to maintain the dominance and authority they hold in society, they are constrained from appearing feminine."

Exactly. It's a facet of being the dominant group. It's not even a trade-off; it's just part of the job description.

For those of us that agree that these gendered water bottles are a product of a patriarchal society, let's not forget the basic oppressed/oppressor master/slave relationship.

Yes, women are not powerful in this society, so their choices are not threatening in some relatively inane instances (but when it's tangible? A woman in a male-dominated workplace? It becomes a threat, and then hostile as hell).

Men must preserve masculinity, or it all falls down. Things are gendered to prop up and preserve men's cultural dominance. It is self-interest.

If a man makes a sincere, conscious effort to reject "feminine" and "masculine" attributes, this is not only self-destructive as it will cost him some of his male privilege, but he will be punished by the other men that see him as a traitor to their class.

Does this make the dude a victim? Does this make him the butt-end of a joke? Does it make him some pitiful ally of a creature that feminists should go out of their way to coo and coddle?

In the grand scheme of things, no. A dude doing only dudely things is a PART of his privilege. Successfully achieving free gender expression would make him powerless, silenced, outcast; it would make him almost like a woman.

The dudes that maintain their privileged group identity and still feel entitled to express themselves as individuals? You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Quite a lot of drama-llamas over water bottles. My my.

Anyway, why isn't it easier to just market all 77 water bottles as....water bottles? They're not clothes in which men's and women's are inherently different. You buy it, you put water in it, you drink it, works the same no matter what genitals you have. Why should a man be called a woman if he wants the pretty pink bottle with flowers on it?

I'm interested that nobody seems to have mentioned a similar phenomenon, namely the difference in treatment of health issues. Arguably issues like breast and prostate cancer are a lot more important than water bottles, and the differences between funding/media attention for men's and women's health issues seem to be another example of this "patriarchy constrains men's choices" phenomenon. It's well-known that women have longer life-expectancy than men. It's also my understanding that men's health issues (like prostate cancer) generally receive less funding than equivalent women's health issues. Perhaps men are less likely to demand or seek out medical care for fear of being considered "unmanly". Perhaps the assumption of patriarchy leads people to expect that men have it better than women in all aspects of life. Perhaps traditional gender roles place higher value on "protecting" (and hence caring for) women.

Thoughts? Comments? Data?

Yes, it's a small thing and insignificant in itself but it is symptomatic of a larger worldview that gives women more latitude within their gender than it gives men. A boyish girl may not be fully accepted, but it's better to be called a tomboy than a sissy.

I had some ideas to contribute, but I got sidetracked by all the rudeness.... What was it...?

Oh, yes.

First - As a male who is constantly frustrated with the lack of choices in fashion simply by being male, I appreciate this post and would like to see more exploration of the topic. I agree that while water bottles probably isn't the most necessary item with which to make the point, one can visit any retail store and glance from one side to the other to see this idea demonstrated.

On the side designated for women, there are several different cuts, styles, fabrics, colors, and accessories. On the side designated for men, you have wide polos in green, brown, or blue. Of course, I am generalizing, but I am very aware of this every time I go shopping.

Second - I believe that the availability of fashions and accessories designated for men that are also available for women (as illustrated by the water bottle example above) gets to the idea that its okay for a woman to express masculinity, but not for a man to express femininity. I believe this point was also mentioned above.

Finally - Unrelated to the article itself, but in response to the comment thread: I am saddened to see this kind of behavior. I visit this blog frequently, considering it a sanctuary on the internet for intelligent and thoughtful insight into society. I hadn't expected that insight to be that no matter how thoughtful, educated, intelligent, and/or openminded we all seem to be, we still treat each other like crap.