Shortshriftandlethal · I think the marketisation of 'pink' for girls really began in the 1980's..... Disney became a huge marketing machine...pushing gender stereotypes and imagery and all of that princess guff.
Great post, Shortshriftandlethal.
The rise of the pink/fluffy/princess/glitter/butterfly thing can also be linked to a backlash against feminism and the limited advances made by the women's movement in the 1970s. I think that's what was called 'Second Wave feminism' but TBH I'm a bit vague about all that wave business - anyway it was the time when equal rights for women were being mainstreamed, the first rape crisis centres and women's refuges, Our Bodies Ourselves published - really fundamental stuff that is now at risk.
The possibility of little girls growing up to believe that they could be and do anything they wanted and be the equal of their brothers was obviously very threatening, so along came the fluffy pink princess 'guff'.
It sounds fluffy and silly, but the influences on little children's early years are so important to their hopes and aspirations AND to their acquisition of motor skills and dexterity - running around, catching, kicking and throwing balls, handling construction toys, learning to use basic tools, etc. are not just playing, they are developing important skills.
Princesses don't run around and kick footballs, do they?
You also mention the 'skin care regimes' being pushed - including wall-to-wall ads on MN - for little girls from as young as 8 or 9. This has been criticised for all sorts of reasons, including on FWR, and by me, amongst others. There are so many things wrong with it, from damaging self esteem to financial to dermatological (children's skin shouldn't be subjected to this kind of treatment), but is another one of those daft, expensive and potentially damaging fads that girls get subjected to at regular intervals😠