Things are gender specific because they're generally liked by said gender by default, not because big industry wants to push it, there's no stopping anyone from choosing the other either
I don't believe there's a biological preference for pink if you have more estrogen. I'd rather think that there is a subtle influence by many members of the society (other girls, parents, teachers etc) that leads to an assimilation of the gender specific preferences. Industry is not causing this but they promote it. In my childhood most products were just 'for kids' and all kids liked them. Today they are for boys or girls and the kids like them too. But this proves nothing...
I do not know exactly but to me the most likely reason is for girls generally liking pink is because of association, it started at some point because likely something girls liked was pink and they started associating the color with said thing, it creating a domino effect, of other girls liking it because those girls like it, I see nothing wrong with it, even when things were gender neutral, children would naturally choose certain things over others, girls are evolved to be caretakers, and boys are evolved to be providers, girls OFTEN prefer toys that have to do with taking care (like baby dolls, cute animals and doll houses, and like to dress up and such), boys tend to like toys that have to do with jobs/now irrelevant providing care (cars, boys often like construction toys, bigger creatures, army toys or swords as they're also generally the protecting role), of course now society is much different from back in the day, but toys are marked, BECAUSE people gradually got a better idea of what's popular with who, of course there are exceptions, as modern times are different, not every toy is marked, the majority of toys is still neutral, they are just promoted to certain demographics like everything else, I myself am an exception, since I was young I would rather play with micro machines, I loved sharks and sea creatures, and nerf guns, lego star wars, and never did I feel like I wasn't meant to, but most girls my age played with other things than me
Eh sorry for the giant text wall, I included some uneccesary details, it's ok to skim
I think you're analysis is right in the point of identification: kids like to identify with others that are somehow equal and that of course contains the gender. But I don't like it when this brings them away from doing the things they would have done otherwise. My girlfriend used to play computer games what wasn't quite girlish in the 90s. She also studied physics and I know a couple of other women that did. Most of them told me that they think that society tends to press girls into specific roles that might or might not fit them. Like teachers telling the girls they don't need to understand a lot of maths and such things. Gender specific products, especially the ones that don't have to be it, like a drawing book, do the same.
As I've written somewhere else: my 13 month old baby girl likes to play with cars. I won't stop her. She also likes to drive her doll sheep around with the toy buggy. I won't stop this either. I wish she could chose so freely during her whole childhood what she likes to do.
She still will be able to, people do not force her to choose other things, if you are afraid of such, it may be a good idea to tell her often that she should go her own way, I think it's the same with jobs, people naturally tend to choose certain jobs, again, women usually caring roles, which includes caring for the home, kids, husband, and potential pets, while the man is out to provide for the family, again there are exceptions, but it's usually like this as both our body and minds are wired for certain roles, it is not sexist, or pushed, they are just the natural roles we evolved to fit
I don't believe this 'wiring' is so strong as many people claim. I think the overlap in interests between the two sexes is quite broad but people tend to delimit their subgroup from other groups by exagerating the differences. This leads to the classical stereotypes of the sexes.
The most likely case is that we evolved to survive in this way: Men evolved traits practical for hunting, and other forms of providing, such as physically strong bodies, more capacity for muscles, a different mentality/agressive/protective, and women being the main childcaring and homecaring roles, I do not think our species would have gotten this far without either, women were the motivation, men were the drive, apparently it's a great strategy, things are much different now, but the groundwork is still there, men still make up the majority of providing and protecting roles, men do most of the risky jobs, women are allowed to do near every job men are, women are allowed in the army, in sciences, anywhere, usually they just do not fit the physical requirements or motivation to do said jobs, except for certain fields which they are good at (like working at battlefield hospitals, administrative roles and social science)
A couple of studies show that the actual difference between men and women in mental skills and psychological characteristics is quite small with the exception of men having a higher level of aggression. In many still-existing stone-age cultures women also contribute to the provison of food, e. g by hunting small prey. But even if one might accept the simple stone-age image "man = hunter, women = childcare" (which is not so simply true as modern archeology shows), how would this translate into modern society? Maybe it explains the interest for competitive sports, military and dolls. But what about cars, math, computers, adventures stories, liking shoes, cooking, unicorns and the colors pink and blue? None of these can be related directly with the attitudes/abilies for hunting or caretaking. These are all secondary exagerations of these primary differences and these exagerations are a construct of society, not evolution.
Though you can actually see physical differences in the brain of a woman and the brain of man, yes men and women have lots of the same instincts, we're still part of the same species, just to different extent, as you say yourself, "contributing to", not the main, and hunting smaller prey with less risk, it is reasonable to not want to get in danger more as the caring role, I am not thinking it is simple, but I am saying there have always been gender roles, and things either genders excell at, I am just giving examples of the main roles of them, most things like providing food and the like, still go similarly, things have just become nearly risk free, compared to older times, math and computing and such, are still dominated mostly by men, but also have a significant ammount of women, adventure stories are broad and there are many types of it, subgenres which are also popular to certain genders, liking shoes and unicorns is a common thing for girls, they are pretty, cute, majestic, girls seem to also have a thing for those traits, cooking I suspect was a female dominated role long ago, though professional cooks are usually still male, since that's a money earning job, providing, colors associated with genders again, I do not see an inherent reason other than vague reasons like pink flowers being very pretty and also very visible, and women having a thing for pretty things, and colors may actually just be a thing associated to other things over time by society, society is evolved, people evolved to be social creatures, and everything is inherently still based on survival/the illusion of surviving/helping, the way of caretaking and providing is changed much, but the framework stays, we adapt but adaptation is a slow process and society changes fast
I'm with you on most of the things you've written in your last post. So let's try to be more than then the remains of ancient tribes and encourage our children, both boys and girls, to decide on their wishes and desires by actually making a choice and not only by selecting from a predefined category based on their biological sex they cannot control. For me this means: don't support stereotyped products when this is not needed.
Completely honest, I really do not see a problem with things being mainly targeted for certain demographics, there will always be a main demographic for everything, and that main demographic will be what it is most marketed to, main demographics do not mean "this is only for this demographic", and nobody except odd people sees a problem with girls liking traditionally masculine things, or boys liking traditionally feminine things, they are vague guidelines, not rules, marketing to your main demographic and expanding on it is the most advantageous, if it's similarly popular with both, it will be sold as neutral, but will still be appealing to one more than the other, changing the targeting usually causes problems, and not any new economic advantages, for example, I've had several game franchises start including political ideas and the like, which caused the sales to go down because the existing demographic did not like it, and the people that joined because of the change were very minor and didn't make up for the loss
Many product that were neutral 30 years ago are now available gender-specific only, e. g. cloths for small kids. Making decisions is often not controlled by free will only but by the options available and by the wish to make the socially most acceptable choice, especially for kids. About the economic risks or effects for the companies offering those products I cannot speak because that's their business. I only talk for the right of the kids to become the person they have the predisposition for and that's much more than just beeing girl or boy.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
It's not about 'see in what gender the kid tends into'. It's about disencouraging girls (and boys) to do what they might find interesting. I've got a little girl that likes to play with cars. So what? Playing with cars is certainly not defined by nature or whatsoever. It's a fact: classic society allows to girls all the boring things and then everybody says that girl cannot do the cool stuff (or nordy stuff or what they want to). And in the last decades industry is also interested a lot in this for selling eveything a second time in pink.
Girls GENERALLY just tend to naturally gravitate towards cute things more, though your profile picture is incredibly rad, I love that color scheme and I love retro looking space stuff, awesome
But it wouldn't change a thing if you just replaced the title with a gender neutral one, or would it be a turn off for you?
It would not be, but calling it for girls and giving it pink colors, just adds an extra layer of appeal for girls
Lmao what the hell
@CocoBat yea it's like that 😅