So today I happened to be comparing the packaging on Schick's Quattro razor with trimmer, which comes in two flavors-the kind "For Women," and the "Titanium" kind for everybody else
( Read more... )
Children grow up immersed in a media-saturated (at least, in the industrialized world) society that hegemonically pushes and reinforces traditional gender roles; hats off to those parents who take on the onerous task of combatting these pervasive memes, who let all gender options are valid and available to them and others.
I actually saw those Redken hair products on the shelf yesterday. Which is probably what made me pay attention to this when I was looking at razors today.
Heh, well, maybe I think this is dumber than it really is, just because I'm not very fond of iconography. I dislike the visual design of Race for the Galaxy for similar reasons. :-P
Well, I really am more amused by this than anything. I think the use of icons probably is mainly a consequence of the bilingual packaging.
The thing is, marketers never actually "want" to be sexist. Even in the case of the Dockers ad, the copy writer undoubtedly thought he was expressing a positive message about gender, including advocating greater respect for women. Probably they saw themselves as being deliberately un-PC, but they did not see that as deliberately sexist
( ... )
It depends on what batting an eyelash entails, I guess. I think that most people are going to have some kind of intellectual response to the Dockers ad; it's just that for many people that reaction will be "It's so true! Men do need to grow up and be more manly!" Which is reinforcement, but it's reinforcement by an intellectual premise that can be challenged. Unlike a manly black package, which truly does reinforce without being noticed at all.
"We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar, and untie the world from its web of complacency." LOL
As to the Schicks razor though, I don't find it sexist. I agree with Sara that the iconography was probably used to be "stylish," not patronizing.
Also, I think companies use demographic based advertising because it works. Men and women's razors are different; if they came in the same color, I'm sure there would be a lot of confused customers looking for the bright pink ladies box (rather than just reading the label). I know it sounds stupid, but this is America, and we did elect Bush twice. :- /
The men's and women's Quattro looked pretty much identical to me. There may have been some differences in the shape of the trimmer; I'm not sure.
There may be legitimate differences in ergonomics, but they are based on the assumption that men never want to shave their legs, and women never want to shave their face, which is itself a somewhat sexist assumption. (Though in defense of the razor industry, I have seen a couple of recent campaigns designed to market body razors to men. Gendered as those campaigns were, it could be construed as a more positive approach.)
I don't know how important razor ergonomics really are, though. I suspect a lot of the difference is just due to a different prioritization of comfort and aesthetics in women's products.
Women usually want to wax or pluck facial hair rather than shave it. I think this mostly has to do with the density of the hair.
There are some types of razors marketed specifically for the body part - my SO used to buy the kind specifically marketed for the head, though he doesn't shave his head anymore.
Comments 11
Children grow up immersed in a media-saturated (at least, in the industrialized world) society that hegemonically pushes and reinforces traditional gender roles; hats off to those parents who take on the onerous task of combatting these pervasive memes, who let all gender options are valid and available to them and others.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Schick just wants women to be in web 2.0 is all. XD
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The thing is, marketers never actually "want" to be sexist. Even in the case of the Dockers ad, the copy writer undoubtedly thought he was expressing a positive message about gender, including advocating greater respect for women. Probably they saw themselves as being deliberately un-PC, but they did not see that as deliberately sexist ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
As to the Schicks razor though, I don't find it sexist. I agree with Sara that the iconography was probably used to be "stylish," not patronizing.
Also, I think companies use demographic based advertising because it works. Men and women's razors are different; if they came in the same color, I'm sure there would be a lot of confused customers looking for the bright pink ladies box (rather than just reading the label). I know it sounds stupid, but this is America, and we did elect Bush twice. :- /
Reply
There may be legitimate differences in ergonomics, but they are based on the assumption that men never want to shave their legs, and women never want to shave their face, which is itself a somewhat sexist assumption. (Though in defense of the razor industry, I have seen a couple of recent campaigns designed to market body razors to men. Gendered as those campaigns were, it could be construed as a more positive approach.)
I don't know how important razor ergonomics really are, though. I suspect a lot of the difference is just due to a different prioritization of comfort and aesthetics in women's products.
Reply
There are some types of razors marketed specifically for the body part - my SO used to buy the kind specifically marketed for the head, though he doesn't shave his head anymore.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment