Presents

[ladyofastolat]

Have any of the "hers" around here ever seen anything in the "For Her" section of a Christmas gift catalogue that they would actually want for Christmas? Am I totally out of synch with British womanhood in not longing for moisturiser or bubble bath or curling tongs? At least the men are allowed gadgets and toys, as well as aftershave. I saw one place that was advertising a gift of a magazine subscriptions, and the "for her" selection was entirely women's magazines, while the men were allowed computer games, films, cameras etc. Men are allowed to be interested in things and to do things. Women are only allowed to be interested in beauty and celebrity gossip. It is most annoying. Does it reflect reality, I wonder? I doubt it.

Though speaking of hims, a certain him I know has given me his Christmas list. It includes a full set of fourteenth century armour, an anvil (small), a halberd, a spear things, longsword wasters, and a gambeson. Aftershave would be easier to obtain.

Comments

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Nope, don't think so. It may reflect reality in so far as women are prepared to buy or own things that are branded as 'for men' whereas men on the whole will not touch any product that is feminine in its presentation.

So if you want to sell stuff, you only brand things that the extremely female (or, possibly, extremely gay male) would want as female. Anything that is unisex should be branded as male, because if the women want it they will buy it anyway.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

It's a shame thay can't just be branded as neutral - things for humans, regardless of what sex they are. Society seem to have gone more than ever over to the idea that something is either for women, or for men, and never the twain shall meet - whether it's books, films, magazines, or whatever. Though, as you say, women and girls can get away with reading/wearing/doing "male" things without anyone caring, but men and boys can't do the "female" things, which is horribly unfair.

[sally_maria]

I always find this with the children's toys sections of catalogues as well. There are occasionally girly toys I would have been seen dead with (teddies - that kind of thing) but otherwise the boys sections are so much more fun.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

When I was little, I had lots and lots of teddies, and was very kind and loving to them. However, I despised dolls even from the earliest age. When a well-meaning aunt gave me one, I shut her in a cupboard, and said gleefully, "She's crying now." My parents wisely decided to make sure I never got any more girly toys after that.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

But on the whole, aren't things branded as neutral? Amazon, for example, has no 'for him' or 'for her' sections.

I have a client whose website and catalogue has 'for men' and 'for women' sections - http://www.initialideas.co.uk/ - and in the online catalogue at any rate, stuff that appears in one category is likely to be also listed under non-gender-specific areas such as 'useful gadgets' and 'outside and garden'.

It's just that many people have surprisingly little imagination, and other people have remarkably little personality. If the gift giver is the former and the receiver is the latter, you need to give them something to get them started.

I think that our society is about as gender-neutral as any I can think of, but there do seem to be some built-in tendencies that still exist - like little girls almost always liking pink frillies, for example, or men being much more likely to have a strong interest in sport.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I don't think we're gender neutral in this society. More so than 50 years ago, yes. More so than other cultures in the world? I don't have the necessary information. But it sometimes seems to me that we're getting less gender neutral by the year.

When I do library events, a hundred percent of the little girls turn up wearing pink, all covered with bows and ribbons. When I was 8, my friends and I all dressed in trousers and detested pink. We refused to do anything that seemed "girly", but I hardly ever meet a little girl nowadays who thinks like this. Children's books aimed at the 5 - 9 market are almost entirely "girls'" (pink covers, with fairies and princesses) or "boys'", with no overlap. It wasn't like that five years ago.

And ten years ago, there were a few women's magazines. Now there are millions of "women's" magazines, and lots of "men's" one, too. I've read lots of TV critics going on about how few TV dramas there are now for men - i.e. assuming that all drama is aimed either at women or men. I don't remember seeing that sort of thing being written five years ago.

One could argue that such things are trivial, and it's far more important to judge these things on the number of women in management roles, etc. But I think things like clothes, reading matter, films etc. can say a lot about how society views an issue. And until a man can go to work in a dress, without anyone thinking any less of him, I don't think we have a gender neutral society.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Hm, well your view of small-girlhood is certainly more up to date than mine.

I will, however, now admit that when I was about 6 (probably not 8) I would have loved pink frilly things, but I would never have had the nerve to admit it at the time, because that would have been seriously uncool.

I'm not sure the magazine market indicates anything other than very short-term trends.

The other day I sadly observed that where 10 years ago there would have been a choice of about 7 or 8 gardening magazines, all with interesting seeds or bulbs or something on the cover, there are now just a couple if you are lucky, and they are full of sad articles about the loss of allotments, the trend to ever smaller gardens, and fighting back against the trend for paving everything. I really, really hope that this is something we will see swing back the other way in the next 10 years or so.

There are far fewer Internet mags than there were, but that definitely doesn't indicate a decrease in interest: it's just that most of the stuff has gone online.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I think that's what's changed - that when we were 6, pink was "uncool" (or whatever word we used back then), but now it's "cool", for little girls. Though I suppose all that will have changed again in a few years. These things go in cycles.

Interesting point, too, about how some magazines have vanished because the content has all gone online. I wonder if, in a few years, printed magazines will cater purely for a rather narrow demographic - i.e. those who don't want to, or aren't able to, get their information online.