![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mustela_nivalisIn today's adventures, kaberett, C., and I went for lunch at a not!Italian restaurant (Pizza Express). My opinions: bruschetta should be toasted, not entire bread rolls with hot toppings Dessert was slightly confusing gelato that bore more in common with frozen whipped cream topped with nuts.
Following the meal, we made a necessary shopping expedition to the great British institution of John Lewis. Aside from continual astonishment at wooden mortar and pestle sets, the other baffling component was the gendering of goods and colors. For example, there were silicone muffin molds available on in the attractive shades of pink (for GRLZ) and blue (for BOIZ). However, as seen in this handy socimages text, the gender binary is in truth fractal**. This discovery was made upon finding purple, blue, and green cake molds in the shape of various modes of transport shelved with robots: generally, John Lewis uses this method to indicate toys suitable for boys.
However, kaberett and I tried to reach a conclusion concerning the gender in other, less clear contexts. For example, are dinosaurs fundamentally aimed towards a male consumer? Or, more logically, is this dependent upon the photorealism of the dinosaur? A completely stereotype-based argument could be formed that photorealism is fundamentally an artistic style used to appeal to women: women are more detail-oriented; ergo, design bearing this in mind will more accurately portray dinosaurs or other prehistoric quasi-reptiles. As a matter of course, men are more suited to "big picture" thinking; thus, a hasty sketch of dinosaurs is more appropriate for a product intended for male consumption. Bearing this in mind, this product (pictured below) is likely intended for men*.
Whereas this product (pictured below) is clearly for girls.
Note that our schema may diverge from that of the corporation in question, but their failings are not a fair target.
**Pink is manly because it is the color of UNDERCOOKED MEAT. Blue, by contrast, is feminine because it is the color of skies that are filled with birds that have feathers which are womanly b/c they are made of keratin like fingernails.
*Gender binary may not actually operate in any way like this. Or be anything except a social construct.
Also L'Oreal ads manage to equate hair care with orgasm regardless of gender. I'm dubious of this comparison.
kaberett, C., and I went for lunch at a not!Italian restaurant (Pizza Express). My opinions: bruschetta should be toasted, not entire bread rolls with hot toppings Dessert was slightly confusing gelato that bore more in common with frozen whipped cream topped with nuts.Following the meal, we made a necessary shopping expedition to the great British institution of John Lewis. Aside from continual astonishment at wooden mortar and pestle sets, the other baffling component was the gendering of goods and colors. For example, there were silicone muffin molds available on in the attractive shades of pink (for GRLZ) and blue (for BOIZ). However, as seen in this handy socimages text, the gender binary is in truth fractal**. This discovery was made upon finding purple, blue, and green cake molds in the shape of various modes of transport shelved with robots: generally, John Lewis uses this method to indicate toys suitable for boys.
However, kaberett and I tried to reach a conclusion concerning the gender in other, less clear contexts. For example, are dinosaurs fundamentally aimed towards a male consumer? Or, more logically, is this dependent upon the photorealism of the dinosaur? A completely stereotype-based argument could be formed that photorealism is fundamentally an artistic style used to appeal to women: women are more detail-oriented; ergo, design bearing this in mind will more accurately portray dinosaurs or other prehistoric quasi-reptiles. As a matter of course, men are more suited to "big picture" thinking; thus, a hasty sketch of dinosaurs is more appropriate for a product intended for male consumption. Bearing this in mind, this product (pictured below) is likely intended for men*.
Whereas this product (pictured below) is clearly for girls.
Note that our schema may diverge from that of the corporation in question, but their failings are not a fair target.
**Pink is manly because it is the color of UNDERCOOKED MEAT. Blue, by contrast, is feminine because it is the color of skies that are filled with birds that have feathers which are womanly b/c they are made of keratin like fingernails.
*Gender binary may not actually operate in any way like this. Or be anything except a social construct.
Also L'Oreal ads manage to equate hair care with orgasm regardless of gender. I'm dubious of this comparison.
Tags:
- abstract is teh butch,
- abstract is teh femme,
- also scents are gendered wtf,
- blue is for boiz?,
- blue is for grrlz?,
- dinosaurs are for everyone,
- fruits are ovaries how is manly,
- gender is binary amirite?,
- habanero/mint/genitals: ot3,
- leeks are italian mmkay,
- no srsly color is 4 evry1,
- photorealism is totes butch,
- photorealism is totes femme,
- pink is for boiz?,
- pink is for grrlz?
no subject
Date: 2013-01-10 02:23 am (UTC)Also L'Oreal ads manage to equate hair care with orgasm regardless of gender. I'm dubious of this comparison.
Considering I have never experienced orgasm while tending my hair, I am also dubious.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-10 03:46 am (UTC)also hair care is super orgasmic I don't know what you're talking about
no subject
Date: 2013-01-10 03:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-10 07:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-10 05:08 am (UTC)If you ever decide to give up linguistics, I suggest you become the sort of sociologist that goes on the Colbert Report
no subject
Date: 2013-01-10 01:01 pm (UTC)