Is pink technology patronizing?

September 11, 2007 at 8:11 am 16 comments

There is an intense discussion on Engadget regarding the increasing introduction of pink technology products for women – iPods, Motorolla cell phones, etc. The question is whether the pink gadgets are patronizing to women. Personally I don’t think so. I like the fact that there are a variety of colours available – pink, lime green, blue, silver, white (well white is not really a colour), black, graphite.

What is the harm in it? No-one is pushing pink (or is it hot pink?) down our throats. We don’t have to buy any colour that doesn’t appeal to us. I agree with the guy who says that if these products were only available in black and grey, then some women would complain that there weren’t any women-friendly colours available.

Why take up these non-issues? And why assume that the hot pink was targeted at women alone (although we all know it was) – I know some men who prefer the hot pink ipods – no names will be mentioned here 🙂 And what about the new red iPod nanos? Are those targetted at women too? Again, I know a number of men whose mouths will water for one of these gorgeous red ipod nanos.

Entry filed under: Posts.

Activism against E-Crime Bill 2007 continues Goodbye Anita!

16 Comments Add your own

1. kinkminos | September 11, 2007 at 11:39 am

>>> I know some men who prefer the hot pink ipods – no names will be mentioned here

tsk tsk, what an unfair world we live in: women can use black and silver and cerulean blue gadgets with impunity, but men dare not use pink or lilac or violet gadgets for fear of losing their creek club memberships..

not to mention that women can wear suits and jeans and t-shirts, but men can’t wear ghagras or saris or ball gowns.

vy… this be hypocrisy
(no?)
Reply
2. Jehan | September 11, 2007 at 11:45 am

I, for one, don’t have any objection to men wearing pink or red or any colour they wish (in fact they look quite nice in pink or red). As for buying tech products that are pink, why not? I wouldn’t blink an eye. It is their own shyness or bias, or fear of what others will say or think, that keeps them from doing so. As for ghararas, ball gowns, sarees, go for it!!! 🙂
Reply
3. Vic | September 11, 2007 at 1:13 pm

While I must admit the thought of wearing a sari or ball gown is not very enticing, I do wear ‘lungis’ often – indistingushable from ‘sarongs’ – and kurta-pyjama, barely differentiable from ‘punjabi dress’. Well, perhaps in terms of colours, yes.

But to address the point raised in the blog, I saw a news item a couple of weeks back indicating that research on kids shows that the colour preferences are actually hardwired. But then again, perhaps some fashion house paid for the research.
Reply
4. sabizak | September 11, 2007 at 6:42 pm

ohh this hardwired business is such pish tosh. My son has always shown a liking for pink along with many other colours. Its only now that he has environmental influencers that he shies away from openly showing a liking for anything dominantly pink (an idea that i do my best to discourage).
Reply
5. Osama A. | September 12, 2007 at 9:45 am

I believe the RED products were part of the PRODUCT(nano)RED campaign started by Oprah to combat Aids.

A proceeds of those goes out to Aids victims.
Reply
6. Jehan | September 12, 2007 at 10:29 am

Yes … Bono and Oprah launched it – and did you know that on that day, the Apple logo at the 5th Avenue Apple Store turned red?
Reply
7. Sabeen Mahmud | September 14, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Pink for girls, blue for boys – this ridiculous gender stereotyping and categorizing begins before children are born. Generation after generation, people are conditioned to behave a certain way. Boys will play with guns and girls will play with dolls. Very dangerous stuff.

A boy who chooses a pink iPod is sure to be labelled a freak or queer or gay. Well, maybe metrosexual since that’s the hot ticket these days. Bah!!
Reply
8. sabizak | September 15, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Sabeen, I think the term metrosexual is great, at least it gives men the social cover to be able to gender bend.
Reply
9. kinkminos | September 15, 2007 at 3:14 pm

i don’t know why… but every time i hear the word metrosexual i can’t help but think of it as the opposite of heterosexual. (not that i’m homophobic or anything.. far from it)
Reply
10. Sabeen Mahmud | September 16, 2007 at 12:43 am

Hmmm … IMHO metrosexuality has more to do with narcissism and consumerism than gender bending. GB usually involves a response to gender generalizations and assumptions.

Of late, corporations/marketeers, in their eternal quest to separate fools from their money, have coined a new phrase “heteropolitan”, claiming that the metrosexual is dead.

Heteropolitan? YUCK!!!
Reply
11. kinkminos | September 16, 2007 at 12:47 pm

i think metrosexuality is the modern woman’s revenge on MAN-kind for forcing women for millenia to tart up for the viewing pleasure and aggrandizement of their men. for centuries all we’ve had to do is show up, and occasionally wax and/or clip our mustachios. kind of unfair i think.

personally i have no desire to spend hours a week having my nails manicured (echh), my coiffure tossed (yuck), or my skin exfoliated (ewww). nor do i expect my wife to doll herself up for me every time i come home from work or we go out. i think this dressing up thing is such a farce. in matters sartorial, my guru is now the late prof einstein.
Reply
12. sabizak | September 19, 2007 at 5:25 pm

Sabeen, it depends upon how you define metrosexuality and I am unaware if there is any definition around that necessarily terms it as a man dressing up well (I will Google it immediately in case I incur your wrath for being slothful).

Ok, so I read up on the detailed definition of metrosexuality and yours seems to conicide with most of what is written there but if you go down this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrosexual

and look at the header that reads ‘Changing Masculinity’ you will see how I feel Metrosexuality (or whatever other name we want to give it) ought to be defined.

‘GB usually involves a response to gender generalizations and assumptions’
Yes it does (and I see them rampant all around me) and therefore even the traditional form of metrosexuality as a start can help in being a stepping stone to men thinking in ways that are supposedly feminine and provide them with the courage to develop more ‘neutral’ personalities in terms of gender—a healthy mix of what is supposedly masculine or feminine.
Reply
13. zakintosh | September 22, 2007 at 12:22 pm

I feel that the term Metrosexual was coined primarily by Madison Ave and ‘sold’ to the public … all packaged and complete with dress-code, the right tolietriies, and the way to ‘lounge around’ in provocative ways.
Reply
14. sabizak | September 23, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Yes zakintosh, that is what it primarily seems to be but what I was saying above was that it can perhaps in some near or not so near future be expanded to include the positive aspects of androgyny as well and thus become an empowering term for men who are in touch with their (so called) feminine side.
Reply
15. Jehan | September 23, 2007 at 3:16 pm

Metrosexual, Hetrpolitan – all these labels are just THAT – labels! I think if a person has sufficient confidence in himself/herself, then they wear or buy anything that they fancy.

I agree with Sabizak, nothing is really hardwired. It is the influences around us that make us feel something is more suitable for one gender or the other. If you stretch this further, then men should not cry even if they feel totally shattered. We need to get past that. Personally I believe that a man who is sensitive, compassionate and expresses his feelings openly, is a great human beng – and someone I would be very comfortable with. All the macho stuff is a put-on!
Reply
16. Zina Hensen | January 11, 2010 at 9:55 am

I like your coverage of technology. Please encourage your readers to visit the up and coming website that reviews and picks the technology products with woman in mind. Check it out: http://smartpicks4women.com

Will see you later!
Reply