4 thoughts on “A wonderful ad

  1. I had a big argument with my mum about this. Apparently it is insulting to a boy’s fragile young masculinity to have any colour (let alone pink!) painted on his nails. It insults the child in ways he is not even aware of. This is not the fault of society’s endless bid to gender construction but because masculinity itself is innately vulnerable and fragile. The elusive nature of femininity means that a girl could not be damaged in the same way, for instance by playing with trucks. Her femininity is strong enough to withstand such a contradiction. Arguing against my mother’s devout gendering was impossible.

    The funny thing is that she raised me – a girl who insisted on dressing in all my brother’s clothes, calling myself Michael, and insisting I had all the same bits as a boy. She never raised an eyebrow about me. So as an ex-tomboy, I felt for the child under discussion – why is it that for a girl to look like a boy can be cute and innocuous, while for a boy to look like a girl is degrading?

  2. This becomes easier to understand if we think that, for a large group of gender-minded people, “equality” is a stand-in for “power.” For them, women having the rights to do male things represents access to power, while men doing female things represents giving power up. Concern for gender roles, in this group, is misrecognized will to power.

  3. The sexual politics of liberalism has always been confused.
    It was always OK for men to model themselves on Holly Golightly even when women who did so were called anti-feminist.
    The ad is reactionary-cute.

Comments are closed.