Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Girls Allowed

polygon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 240 posts

Re: No Girls Allowed

#121

Post by parasubvert »

spindritf wrote: post #24

Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that marketing has anywhere near the power this article ascribes to it? I hear this a lot lately. Some people believe that media have an almost magical power of shaping culture and behaviours. Beauty? Cosmo propaganda. Boys liking different toys than girls? Marketing. Yet when you dig a little deeper, studies on priming usually get wee p-values and barely significant, temporary cha…

One could argue the whole distinguishing feature of modern for-profit organizations is that they are marketing entities with a side of innovation. Markets aren't created by God, they're created by marketers (or entrepreneurs acting as marketers).

Advertising (and broadcast media in general) seems to be an amplifier of existing beliefs or desires. I agree there's little statistical or scientific proof it can convince people of something the opposite to something they already believe -- though there's centuries of evidence that people CAN be sold to.

Marketing itself is a much broader function that also includes the supply-side: understanding the customer, and shaping the customer's complete experience with the company. Thus why it also includes branding, segmentation, and even product design / quality.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#122

Post by rexreed »

rayiner wrote: post #118
minikites wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are no obvious factors in my daughter's life that should bias her towards pink girly toys, yet she is absolutely obsessed with girly pink clothes and toys. > I honestly can't fathom it. Pink attraction seems to be built in. Like a moth to a flame. Yeah, that doesn't actually make any sense. Pink:blue::girl:boy is 100% artificial and one recent source has it the other way around: > For example, a June 1918 art…

It should be noted that for centuries in the western world, boys and girls also both wore dresses.

MUCH easier to change diapers that way.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#123

Post by aestra »

booyaa00 wrote: post #40
chalst wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You moved the goalposts there a little: why the "completely" in "It doesn't completely change their desires"? What children want is influenced by what their peers want, and what peer groups find desirable is influenced, among other things, by merchandising-related children's TV programming. When I was young, there was far less difference between boys toys and girls toys than there is now.

Woah there. Even when a child is 1 or 2, they start to exhibit the traits that show what they want. Way before they have any peer group, before they can be advertised at etc etc. Girls want to care for things, communicate, etc, and boys want to blow stuff up or build stuff. It's preprogrammed into our DNA.

Except that parents, caregivers, and strangers treat baby girls different than they treat baby boys.

And they usually dress them differently (girls get girl clothes, boys get boy clothes).

http://www.newsweek.com/why-parents-may-cause-gender-differe...

Re: No Girls Allowed

#124

Post by mogrim »

junto wrote: post #37
spindritf wrote: post #24

Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that marketing has anywhere near the power this article ascribes to it? I hear this a lot lately. Some people believe that media have an almost magical power of shaping culture and behaviours. Beauty? Cosmo propaganda. Boys liking different toys than girls? Marketing. Yet when you dig a little deeper, studies on priming usually get wee p-values and barely significant, temporary cha…

Having a daughter about the same age so it gives me a bit of insight. She doesn't get to watch TV. Her playgroup has no major bias towards pink for girls (actually even deliberate in their avoidance of such stereotyping). My wife secretly detests pink and girly stuff and is/was a tomboy at heart. We do not discourage or encourage any particular colour or style. There are no obvious factors in my daughter's life that…

My eldest was identical - gender neutral toys when she was small, a yellow-painted bedroom, no particular bias for or against pink (she had some pink clothes, but not all), then... Bam! Pink! She turned 4 or 5 (I forget) and suddenly her life was a pink tinged fantasy of Disney Princesses, Barbie etc. No idea why.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#125

Post by Pxtl »

That was really freaking long.

I can't help but notice the recurring theme that the actual game designers are trying to make fun gender-neutral products but the marketing and leadership is the source of misogyny. I mean, when they start talking about the PS1 era their examples are WipeOut (the only "gendered" thing in the game is the announcer) Tomb Raider (Croft has somewhat absurd proportions but she's a far cry from the kind of exploitative stuff you see in the Dead or Alive games and whatnot) and Gran Turismo (masculine only by the technicality that it's about cars).

I'm a guy, so this is obviously a "check my privilege" thing, but I feel like the misogyny of the gaming industry (and geek culture at large) didn't really take hold until console gaming went online and the collective sea of poop-throwing 4channers got their he-man-woman-haters club into games. The games were targeted at boys well before then, and the themes got heavily masculine in the mid-'90s with the FPS revolution... but the active You Are Not Welcome thing seemed to take hold later.

I mean, obviously geek culture was a bit unsettling for women before then because the combined awkward sexual frustration of a zillion nerds isn't exactly comfortable to be around, but I don't think the outright hatred of women had taken hold.

It seems like the door was open... not so much, anymore.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#126

Post by Kurtz79 »

tomp wrote: post #28
spindritf wrote: post #24

Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that marketing has anywhere near the power this article ascribes to it? I hear this a lot lately. Some people believe that media have an almost magical power of shaping culture and behaviours. Beauty? Cosmo propaganda. Boys liking different toys than girls? Marketing. Yet when you dig a little deeper, studies on priming usually get wee p-values and barely significant, temporary cha…

I remember all the fear mongering about violence in computer games (especially first-person shooters). Now, there is a whole generation of 20-somethings that grew up staring at the screen and shooting people and monsters, and crime rates have not gone up (in fact, they are falling IIRC). Accordingly, I don't think marketing can change our desires and behaviour. Sure, it can change what we buy through brand-perception…

I think that there are many other factors (law enforcement policies, gun control policies, economic climate...) that would affect raw crime rates much more than violent video games (in any way or the other).

If there is an effect of sorts, it's probably lost among the various other factors.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#127

Post by forgottenpass »

tomp wrote: post #28
spindritf wrote: post #24

Is there any non-anecdotal evidence that marketing has anywhere near the power this article ascribes to it? I hear this a lot lately. Some people believe that media have an almost magical power of shaping culture and behaviours. Beauty? Cosmo propaganda. Boys liking different toys than girls? Marketing. Yet when you dig a little deeper, studies on priming usually get wee p-values and barely significant, temporary cha…

I remember all the fear mongering about violence in computer games (especially first-person shooters). Now, there is a whole generation of 20-somethings that grew up staring at the screen and shooting people and monsters, and crime rates have not gone up (in fact, they are falling IIRC). Accordingly, I don't think marketing can change our desires and behaviour. Sure, it can change what we buy through brand-perception…

Now, there is a whole generation of 20-somethings that grew up staring at the screen and shooting people and monsters, and crime rates have not gone up

Accordingly, I don't think marketing can change our desires and behaviour.

But first person shooters and the marketing thereof were never intended to make people more violent. They are designed to make people like and play more first person shooters. Even the crazies who claim games do make people violent, mostly don't claim that making people violent are their intended purpose.

Re: No Girls Allowed

#128

Post by knowitall »

rmc wrote: post #119
knowitall wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True :-) More people seem to be concerned about girls liking pink than about boys not liking pink, though.

Boys will physically assault boys who like pink. It'd say that counts as "people concerned that boys don't display their liking of pink".

Hm, is that a general rule? My son is not yet in school, so I don't know what it is like these days.

Also "like pink" is different from owning the occasional pink thing. I suppose a boy who would dress exclusively in pink would stand out, and maybe the bullies would try to cut him down. Still, I suspect it is not a large scale problem - obviously I don't condone the actions of such bullies, I mean there are probably not that many boys who would prefer to dress all in pink. (I didn't research that, though - in any case everybody should be allowed to like/wear whatever they want).

Re: No Girls Allowed

#129

Post by thedz »

trothoun wrote: post #100
shawabawa3 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And he posted some evidence that yes, it really does. The diamonds marketing campaign shows that marketing really can completely change cultural norms

Would examples of large, unsuccessful marketing campaigns, be equally strong evidence that marketing does not affect our perceptions of cultural norms?

No, because you only need one example to prove that it is possible (and that, therefore, marketing can change our perceptions of cultural norms).

Re: No Girls Allowed

#130

Post by mogrim »

anonymousab wrote: post #49
hownottowrite wrote: post #6

In 1983, North America experienced a massive recession in the video game industry, now known as the video game crash. The crash had devastating effects, bankrupting game company after game company. At its peak, the revenues for video games in the U.S. sat at $3.2 billion in 1983. By 1985, revenues fell a whopping 97 percent to approximately $100 million. There are many factors behind the crash. The key factor is that…

The crucial bit is that the public had almost no way of knowing if a game was even playable before buying. Complete opposite today, except for people who preorder every big name game and are likely satisfied regardless. I can see some resemblance in the freemium market - consumer awareness and protections have not caught up with how bad everyone is getting gypped.

> The crucial bit is that the public had almost no way of knowing if a game was even playable before buying.

I don't agree: computer games magazines were huge back then, I remember reading and re-reading the reviews at school with my mates, even without the internet it wasn't hard to find out if a game was any good or not.

Post reply on HN