your claim implies that if a certain product (or products related in a theme such as 'pragmatism') A is marketed towards a consumer group B, then B must naturally be inclined to desire product group A.
This leads to the assumption that innate behavioral differences between genders is directly responsible for the discrepancy seen in cultural representations of gender in marketing, media, or even language.
this assumption is not only intuitively wrong, but it is directly contradicted by decades of sociological research.
Almost all of our perceived gender differences are constructed through our use of language and perpetuation of harmful, inaccurate stereotypes[0]. This means that a gender concept such as heterogeneous masculinity is self fulfilling. It simultaneously provides a standard of behavior (men should build stuff, men should be powerful, men should make lots of money, men should 'have' a woman) and is constructed by men's behavior (I made stuff, I am powerful, I make lots of money, I 'have' a woman, therefore I 'am a man').[1]
In regards to it being intuitively wrong:
You mentioned that many items that are marketed to men have a 'pragmatic' function. I'd argue that they're not always pragmatic (you mentioned sports cars), and instead, the overarching theme of most products marketed towards men(and, often by extension, most advertisements) is power.
An immediate example that comes to my mind is toy advertisements that are targeted at children. Most toys that are marketed towards boys feature an element of construction, violence, or critical thinking, while most ads targeted towards girls feature homemaking or visual arts. I don't feel the need to provide a footnote here as the google search 'gender differences in childrens' advertisements' provides a wealth of information.
These differences in advertisements are not because children who have a feminine gender identity are bad at or naturally averse to thinking critically. The disconnect between advertisements targeted at children is a clear example of marketing agencies accomplishing gender on a large scale. This is a particularly potent example because not only does it show that there _are_ differences in the way that gender is constructed, it shows that there is actually a power differential created between the two genders!
This is not to say that the marketing agencies are evil in any way - they are simply playing into a market separation that already exists because of our current construction of gender roles. However, by 'doing gender' and continuing to perpetuate our harmful stereotypes, they are in fact doing society a great disservice.
[0] West & Zimmerman, 1987, 'Doing gender'
[1] Mumby, 1998, 'Organizing Men: Power, Discourse, and the Social Construction of Masculinity(s) in the Workplace'