111–120 of 159 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is that really a thing in the US though?
For a simple non-U.S. example, consider J. K. Rowling, who was forced to invent an initialized pen name by her publisher.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bront%C3%AB_famil...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The feminist movement managed to make femininity almost a swear word. Fascinating and very sad. As a male, I was always turned off by unisex products. I wonder how much profit these big companies make with this new marketing strategy. Is it really profitable, or are they just changing their products to avoid public shitstorms, hoping that the shitstorm avoided would have been even worse?
Your musings here are legitimate, so long as you recognize your feelings as a single datapoint and don't mistake them for a general trend, or extrapolate them to the wider population. As a counterpoint, I don't know of any friends or close acquaintances who would consider feminism or femininity a dirty word. To me, it's a fairly straightforward proposition: Q: Are you pro- women having equal rights to men w.r.t. soci…
At the risk of turning an innocent topic into a political discussion, I wonder how much of this trend can be explained by societal privilege. Ie, parents (consciously or subconsciously) want their daughters to benefit from appearing male (at least on paper) and so give them ambiguous or masculine names. And of course, the same parents would do the exact opposite for their sons, by not selecting any name that might be…
I have a friend who did exactly this, giving his daughter a gender neutral name to help her avoid discrimination. It makes a lot of sense to me and would guess this is not uncommon. It also reminds of a study I read about a while back where the researches tried sending out resumes that were all identical except that half had very common names and half had names that are more commonly African American. Probably unsurp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How interesting because from my perspective (a woman) I feel like I'm seeing significantly fewer products that are marketed to/cater to traditional notions of femininity and instead there seems to be a trend towards inclusivity. Tom Ford, Bvlgari, Calvin Klein, and Chanel all have uni-sex fragrances now. Chanel's is called "Boy" and CK's is very inclusively named "all". And there's a _huge_ trend in high-end cosmetic…
Ironically, pink used to be the boys' color back a couple hundred years, because royal red = king, pink = prince, blue = princess. The pink = girl color switched only in more recent times. It's very stupid.
First, this is a great and original (AFAIK) post. Kudos to the author! Second, I actually find the most interesting fact to be completely unmentioned by the author: that in the first chart (greatest absolute changes), of the 30 biggest swaps, only two were female->male, while the other 28 (over 90%!) were male->female. It's a remarkable fact -- makes me think of how it's historically been much more acceptable for wom…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How interesting because from my perspective (a woman) I feel like I'm seeing significantly fewer products that are marketed to/cater to traditional notions of femininity and instead there seems to be a trend towards inclusivity. Tom Ford, Bvlgari, Calvin Klein, and Chanel all have uni-sex fragrances now. Chanel's is called "Boy" and CK's is very inclusively named "all". And there's a _huge_ trend in high-end cosmetic…
The feminist movement managed to make femininity almost a swear word. Fascinating and very sad. As a male, I was always turned off by unisex products. I wonder how much profit these big companies make with this new marketing strategy. Is it really profitable, or are they just changing their products to avoid public shitstorms, hoping that the shitstorm avoided would have been even worse?
Being "like a girl" being insult is not something that started with feminism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The feminist movement managed to make femininity almost a swear word. Fascinating and very sad. As a male, I was always turned off by unisex products. I wonder how much profit these big companies make with this new marketing strategy. Is it really profitable, or are they just changing their products to avoid public shitstorms, hoping that the shitstorm avoided would have been even worse?
Your musings here are legitimate, so long as you recognize your feelings as a single datapoint and don't mistake them for a general trend, or extrapolate them to the wider population. As a counterpoint, I don't know of any friends or close acquaintances who would consider feminism or femininity a dirty word. To me, it's a fairly straightforward proposition: Q: Are you pro- women having equal rights to men w.r.t. soci…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, pink used to be the boys' color back a couple hundred years, because royal red = king, pink = prince, blue = princess. The pink = girl color switched only in more recent times. It's very stupid.
Those colour preferences might be innate though https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12512-women-may-be-ha...
Funny:
> As expected from previous work, both sexes rated blues as best. But analysis of all the colour comparisons revealed that the women had a significantly higher preference for blues with “pinkish” undertones such as lilac
But actual color split is between woman getting pinkish pink and boys getting bluish blue. It is not "women get slightly more violet shade of blue like lilac". It is "boys are blue and girls are pink" - pink being completely different color then is supposed to be female preference according to the study.
> Hurlbert speculates there may also be evolutionary arguments for both sexes’ preference for blue. “Going back to our ‘savannah’ days, we would have a natural preference for a clear blue sky, because it signalled good weather.
Lets not pretend this is science.