Monday, December 7, 2009

Pink Follow-Up

Bagehot:
It isn't only pink, but it seems to me there are a whole range of related stereotypes that surround little girls, in part through aggressive marketing, that potentially have a deleterious impact: through miniature housework kits, make-up marketed to very young children, ballerinas and, yes, pink. Cumulatively they convey the message that a little girl's job is to look dainty and pretty, one that risks circumscribing some girls' ambitions and chances.

I am not totally convinced about the alleged link between pink and other serious problems such as eating disorders and premature sexualisation. But I do know that the cult of pink is insidious and powerful. Take a little girl to a playground, and you find that unless she is wearing pink (or has long hair), virtually everyone will think she's a boy. That seems odd to me, and a bit worrying.

I understand the point. Have always understood the point. But I still object to blaming pink. It's blamed, methinks, unfairly simply due to its ubiquity, but I'm repeating myself and will leave the subject be.

3 comments:

dance said...

I did draft a response re social constructivism that I will eventually post on my own blog, long past any relevance.

I still hold, however, that claiming those people are *only* protesting pink is an egregious misreading of the original article and their quotations, though.

It's not blamed due to ubiquity. It's blamed because it is an obvious symbol of and shorthand for the process that made pink ubiquitous.

FLG said...

As long as the pink issue still exists your post will be relevant.

*Egregious* misreading?

arethusa said...

I have a friend whose six-month-old is always dressed in pink or lavender. People still think she's a boy.

 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.