Pink pressure: Not a problem

lp has sent in a really puzzling article.

The main argument seems to be:

Girls are heavily pressured into all things pink and fluffy, which you might think is restricting their options.
Moreover, there’s nothing hard-wired about the pink preference: it really is the result of societal pressures.
But not to worry: everything important is hard-wired, so environment can only make a negligible difference.
So the pink pressure can’t have any significant effects.

The last premise would seem to be a bit strong. It would also seem to require a bit more support than the article gives (a few anecdotes about girls who wear pink but also like mud, and so on).

5 thoughts on “Pink pressure: Not a problem

  1. Is it just me, or is the hard-wired vs. socially influenced distinction sort of problematic to begin with?

  2. berry picking on the savannah. nice. the thing that strikes me about this line of reasoning is that (among other things) it’s a nice little defense of marginalising homosexuals: they’re hard-wired to be the way they are, so pushing them into (hetero)sexual stereotypes is unproblematic!

  3. In the article, Gurian says,

    Everyone is hard-wired with four things – gender, a talent set, personality and differing ability to deal with trauma.

    This strikes me as preposterous. (Isn’t a talent set analytically hard-wired?) That he says these things with such certainty is a pretty big alarm bell, and it doesn’t help that he backpedals later on:

    But girls believed to have been harmed by too much pink are actually either “traumatised by something, or not given the opportunities to develop their natural talents.”

    Isn’t “not given the opportunities to develop..” precisely what we mean when we object to drowning girls in pink princess crap? And if traumatization helps define how much our environment affects us, doesn’t the supposition that our ability to be traumatized is hard-wired entail that some of us can be significantly molded by socialization?

    This Gurian fellow has invested a lot of time writing about the differences between boys and girls, and this is a stance that our society – even the ever-objective BBC! – is likewise invested in maintaining. I’m therefore reminded of Robert Jensen’s popular piece in which he warns, “After thousands of years of patriarchy in which men have defined themselves as superior to women in most aspects of life, leading to a claim that male dominance is natural and inevitable, we should be skeptical about claims about these allegedly inherent differences between men and women.”

Comments are closed.