Nongendered products marketed in pink to women mean women are being condescended to and exploited through marketing, while products marketed in blue (or other gendered symbols) are proof of men’s fragile masculinity and insecurity.
knowingless.com/2019/02/03/bla
Conversation
Replying to
I’m paraphrasing the example from an article I read recently that I can’t for the life of me remember, but the background idea is something I wrote about in this blog post a while ago. I’m reshaping because my mentions have been full of inconsistent agency applications lately.
3
24
Replying to
I kept reading and expecting to see the connection to toxic masculinity, which is what this post seems to be explaining, but it never came.
Looking at trends, you wrote this about a month after toxic masculinity went mainstream with the Gillette controversy.
1
Replying to
If there’s no connection in my post to toxic masculinity, then why are you saying my post was connected to a controversy over toxic masculinity?
1
1
Show replies
Replying to
Something similar came up when the NFL did their pinks shoes etc thing right after the Ray Rice incident
Replying to
Do you make the distinction between responsibility and culpability? Once we realize it exists, it's a very important distinction to make, but many people don't, and say responsibility when they really mean culpability.
Replying to
It also reminds me of this small fact in The Handmaid's Tale: since women aren't allowed to read, commanders can't play Scrabble with their wife. It's worse for women, but stupid rules suck for men too. Both can be true at the same time, there isn't one side with only victims.