Opposing arguments
There can be exceptions where gender marketing is not necessarily harmful and could even be helpful towards a more equal and nonrestrictive society. It is also possible that gender marketing is justified on biological grounds--or is it? Here I will address potential arguments in opposition of my stance decrying gender marketing.
Contestation 1: It is for men or women because it actually is for men or women.
Sure, tampons are marketed towards women, but that is because they are used exclusively by women. It might not be harmful to market towards the only demographic group that should be using a given product. I take issue with this argument, especially in the case of feminine hygiene products.
The first problem with this argument is in the actual advertisements and product packaging of these gender-exclusive products. Often I enjoy the ridiculous premises that tampon commercials create--even during menstruation, there may be some false expectation that women should perform and look their best and can physically perform tasks that many people cannot even do in peak condition. On the other hand, it is also true that these commercials could be a form of empowerment for women, depicting that women can be at their best regardless of the conditions.
|
"Expectation" versus reality?
|
The second problem with this argument is in the assumption of a strict equality of gender and biological sex. While I have stated that tampons are "for women", they are generally for any person who experiences menstruation. Gender marketing of tampons and sanitary pads can fail to acknowledge transsexual or gender non-binary people who menstruate as they might not identify as a woman. Gender is a spectrum and not a male-female binary, so the problem with gender marketing for sex-specific products is its continued reinforcement of the gender binary and gender stereotypes.
Marketing for biological sex-based products could also be more practical minded. The product does not have to necessarily be attributed to a given gender--we could advertise tampons and pads as particularly absorbent or movement-enabling in a description similar to this description of a protective cup system for martial arts. However, the switch to gender-neutral marketing might not appear practical for these products at the moment, so the shift towards more gender neutrality and equality can occur gradually as our ideas of gender change.
Marketing for biological sex-based products could also be more practical minded. The product does not have to necessarily be attributed to a given gender--we could advertise tampons and pads as particularly absorbent or movement-enabling in a description similar to this description of a protective cup system for martial arts. However, the switch to gender-neutral marketing might not appear practical for these products at the moment, so the shift towards more gender neutrality and equality can occur gradually as our ideas of gender change.
Contestation 2: Gender marketed products can actually help push towards equality.
I will not deny that certain gender marketed products like GoldieBlox I find successful and useful. GoldieBlox is a series of products marketed toward women under CEO Debbie Sterling, a Stanford University Mechanical Engineering / Product Design graduate. The GoldieBlox products are quite successful and an article on Everyday Feminism by Paige Lucas-Stannard defends gendered toys on the premise of GoldieBlox and similar products. In the current state of affairs, I will defend it as well--if the feminine, pastel colors are necessary to market an engineering toy to girls, then so be it. Stereotypes of a gender's color preferences are usually less harmful than gender roles in careers, and with girls as a minority in the engineering, GoldieBlox is a very helpful product even if gender marketed.
However, I find that gender marketing campaigns similar to GoldieBlox is not always as well executed. Lego's Friends line is perhaps the more unfortunate example of gender marketing a building toy towards girls. Perhaps we may defend Lego's Friends as "daughters who avoided blocks were now avid builders" according to a 2012 letter to the editor in the New York Times from Joanne Oppenheim, president of Oppenheim Toy Portfolio, in reply to Elizabeth's Sweet's article decrying Lego's Friends line. Oppenheim also claims that the line "avoided the shopping mall and beauty themes used by other toymakers". Ironically, by now there is actually a shopping mall and model catwalk set for the Friends line, so the Lego corporation perhaps regressed into stereotypical feminine themes for their Friends line since 2012, even if the line was a business success. Many of the products in the Friends line appeal to traditional themes of femininity and may restrict girls to these products and discourage them from choosing "boyish" Lego products. Goldie Blox is actually one of the more well
done attempts at gender marketing, but with perhaps well-meaning but not
as well executed attempts such as Lego’s, there are still issues that gender
marketing introduces to our perceptions of gender roles in society.
|
Lego's Heartlake Shopping Mall. Where are the cool robots?
|
Contestation 3: Gender preferences for activities are biologically inherent for a person's sex.
I always found this claim interesting. Can I simply dismantle this claim and say for certain that preferences are not biologically inherent? Not quite, but I certainly believe so based on the evidence.
Biological preference often is a justification for gender marketing as they appeal to a general majority of people who fit within their gender roles. The letter to the editor by Shirley Copperman in reply to Sweet's article claims by personal experience that biological preferences did occur in her children--even with parenting "without stereotypes", Copperman's son and daughter tended towards what are considered sex-typical activities. This is not an unusual case--a 2002 study showed that sex-typical toys are commonly requested by children when their parents purchase one. But can we claim that these preferences are biological? Copperman could not have possibly controlled her children's lives, especially in school, where there may have been pressure towards gender conformity. Another study also shows that sex-related preferences did not show in infants under six months old but did show in adults with respect to faces and toy objects. Even then one may still argue that biological preferences are developed internally due to a child's biological growth. That point may be uncertain--gender-typical preferences may in that time be learned or natural. An interesting point to note, however, is that a profile of science tests given to 15-year-old students in 65 countries demonstrated that girls often outperformed boys in science, when in the United States and quite a few other countries in Europe and the Americas boys outperformed girls. This contradicts the assumption of biological preferences, since there does not seem to be a general case for when a given gender is better suited for one career or toy than another. Overall, the existence of biological preferences is uncertain, especially on scientific basis, to the point where I do not believe in them, though the "nature versus nurture" debate is an interesting one that surpasses the issue of gender marketing.
Biological preference often is a justification for gender marketing as they appeal to a general majority of people who fit within their gender roles. The letter to the editor by Shirley Copperman in reply to Sweet's article claims by personal experience that biological preferences did occur in her children--even with parenting "without stereotypes", Copperman's son and daughter tended towards what are considered sex-typical activities. This is not an unusual case--a 2002 study showed that sex-typical toys are commonly requested by children when their parents purchase one. But can we claim that these preferences are biological? Copperman could not have possibly controlled her children's lives, especially in school, where there may have been pressure towards gender conformity. Another study also shows that sex-related preferences did not show in infants under six months old but did show in adults with respect to faces and toy objects. Even then one may still argue that biological preferences are developed internally due to a child's biological growth. That point may be uncertain--gender-typical preferences may in that time be learned or natural. An interesting point to note, however, is that a profile of science tests given to 15-year-old students in 65 countries demonstrated that girls often outperformed boys in science, when in the United States and quite a few other countries in Europe and the Americas boys outperformed girls. This contradicts the assumption of biological preferences, since there does not seem to be a general case for when a given gender is better suited for one career or toy than another. Overall, the existence of biological preferences is uncertain, especially on scientific basis, to the point where I do not believe in them, though the "nature versus nurture" debate is an interesting one that surpasses the issue of gender marketing.