BBC Gender Stereotyping

[TimeforaNNChange]

Grr.

BBC GBBO promotional photos released today.

All the male competitors mixing blue icing. All the female mixing pink icing.

It doesn't seem like a big deal, but really?

It's just a drip, drip, drip of stereotyping every day, everywhere we look. Blue for boys, pink for girls.

Even in a show that has done wonders for breaking down gender stereotypes in the past.

Rant over.

Jesus wept, what's wrong with blue for boys and pink for girls on a basic level? If my daughter chooses to wear blue then fine but she's hardly going to be led by what colour a contestants icing is on a sodding TV advert. Do you people not have more important things to discuss?

Because it gets people like you all talking, the Facebook post is at the top of my news feed. I saw someone ask if there was a trans contestant and thought 'yeah, because that's a representative sample of 8% of the population'. So hilarious people honestly get het up over this crap

Attempted humour on GBBO has created a backlash before. Sue Perkins has been in trouble for double entendres;

www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/great-british-british-bake-host-4305300

There is a way to get into the production team on the GBBO homepage;

thegreatbritishbakeoff.co.uk/contact-us/

There is also OFCOM, who regulate TV and radio output.

Or no "coloured piping". Like actual astronauts!

I understand Nadiya got racial abuse too. Some people are utter arses.

deydododatdodontdeydo wrote - "how is it labelling women as other and not labelling men as other? Is blue inherently superior to pink?"

On one level, blue and pink are only colours, but I think it is mistake to conclude that pink and blue are regarded as equal in status by western societies.

Blue/pink stereotyping almost always puts men as default. Manufacturers don't usually make all their products pink by default for women and produce special man-friendly versions in what are regarded as subdued masculine colours such as blue or black, as a marketing gimmick. Same for cars, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. (see: pink BIC pens for her )

It's similar to how the word "guys" is used in a supposedly gender-neutral way but it actually centres men as default. "Guys" is often used to address a group of men and/or women, but "girls" is almost never used to address a group of men.

According to this article, we've reversed the blue/pink thing already:

__

Pastel baby clothes were introduced in the mid-19th century, but according to University of Maryland historian Jo B. Paoletti, author of Pink and Blue: Telling the Girls From the Boys in America, the colors weren't gender-specific at first. From Smithsonian.com:

Ladies' Home Journal article in June 1918 said, "The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl." Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.

In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene's told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle's in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.

jezebel.com/5790638/the-history-of-pink-for-girls-blue-for-boys

Jesus wept, what's wrong with blue for boys and pink for girls on a basic level? If my daughter chooses to wear blue then fine but she's hardly going to be led by what colour a contestants icing is on a sodding TV advert. Do you people not have more important things to discuss?

if you don't see the problem despite pp explaining it, and don't understand why reinforcing gender stereotypes is harmful and restricts potential of both girls and boys, then do you not have more important things to do than post on this thread?
[head tilt]

I don't think this is an issue. I think it's looking to find an issue . ( not meant to be a gf genuinely )

It's not a big issue, it's a minor point, but it's just so bloody depressing that the same tired old gender stereotypes are being lazily used when they could easily be avoided.

There are men friendly versions of stuff. There's now a men friendly Palmers coco butter, hair gels, face cream all in grey/dark metallic colours whilst the normal ones are in plain packaging not aimed at any sex.

Atlas

That would be because palmers has a brand reputation in preventing stretch marks, don't you think?

No a lot of Caribbean men use it.

@vesuvia
Thanks for the response. Don't get me wrong, I think gendered colouring of items is a bad thing. I just didn't think it necessarily followed that pink=bad (to me they are just colours), but I take your point.

It's just labelling women as "other", thus reinforcing sexism

No it is not labelling women as other ; it is labelling women as women and men as men. Whether that is relevant is a completely different argument but this crap that anything "for girls" is automatically inferior is tedious and wrong.

then do you not have more important things to do than post on this thread?
[head tilt]

Sorry but the old "head tilt" manoeuvre rarely enhances the strength of the argument.

I don't care tbh. And posts like " this is othering women" won't make me care.

I don't watch the programme despite doing a lot of baking and being very good at it but blue is not a colour I would use in icing (except on my Union Jack cupcakes during the Scottish referendum to annoy my insufferable Nat supporting in -laws)