In reply to scaco (and others with a similar view). I agree that there is lot of conditioning that goes on to conform to sexual stereotypes, and women are still portrayed in an objectified way (and it’s appalling that this extends to children). It’s also true that objectification of women arises from ideas in society about gender norms (and of course these norms are exploited by capitalism). However, I think we have to be careful that we don’t perpetuate inequality by insisting that the female stereotype is in itself unequal.
For example, in the US, there came a point in the campaign for racial equality when many black people started saying lets stop describing black people as unequal and oppressed, because we don’t want black skin associated with those ideas. They thought that to be truly equal, black skin must be regarded as intrinsically equal, and liberated (and people like Malcolm X, even said lets present black as superior to white). I think in some ways that’s where the campaign for women’s rights is at now. We have to stop portraying feminine as somehow unequal. In basic terms I don’t think how women dress is part of the structures that perpetuate inequality, but to go into the structures that do, is not what this thread was about.
I completely agree with SCACO’s points and feel the same unease with the way society is promoting this over sexualised image for young women, and to risk sounding terribly old-fashioned here, there is a terrible confusion amongst young women today around the right to have sexual freedom, as many seem to have lost the sense of morality and self-protection that is needed to really enjoy this. I was an unmarried mother at 17, so am certainly not in a position to preach or get on a high horse over this, but the priority now too often seems to be sex rather than a loving relationship.
CM I see nothing has changed, I had exactly the same battles with my 3 girls all through their secondary school time 12-15yrs ago!
Anyway that is off the subject of pink and fluffy - actually one thing that has struck me, and I don’t know if anyone else has thought about this - it has been bugging me at the back of my mind the last day or so- is that the point of pink and fluffy is supposed to be to assist with the marketing of breast cancer, to make it “acceptable” for fund raising. SO why, if this is accepted as the best way to go to get public interest, do we have to use scare tactics to get information across to BC sufferers on other threads? Isn’t there something of a conflict here? Maybe we should be scaring the general public into getting involved more by getting those statistics out in the popular press instead of the regular announcements that it is all our fault for being a few pounds overweight or liking the odd glass of wine. Or maybe we need to think a little more about how “fluffying” or properly marketing information, might help with the message.
Sorry, don’t usually get involved in these discussions - will go and put my head back in a bucket now!
Sue xx
Sue you’re final point is valid, but I see no reason why the pink campaign cannot be interspersed with serious information (like Comic Relief), which I referred to in earlier posts. While I support the pink campaign I feel it needs a more serious input.
What I find odd though is that those who criticise the pink campaign for trivialising BC, infantising women, and not telling it like it is, then object that telling it like it is, is too worrying to reveal.
But I don’t want to make judgement on what others think, otherwise we will just lose the thread, and the debate will degenerate into personal unpleasantness.
Sue, I think the blame thing comes from the power of big business (I said this somewhere already I think) - government has ties to (and gets money from) the people who sell alcohol (and unhealthy food etc), so the government won’t acknowledge there’s any responsibility on them to regulate the marketing of alcohol, or to ban eg transfats which are KNOWN to be lethal. This will result in reduced profits and we can’t have that, our economy MUST keep growing. So the government blames individuals, thus absolving them and these giant businesses of responsibility.
LG I see your point, and really I wasn’t trying to make this argument about that. There is a spectrum of femininity, and all of it is fine. It’s the near enforcing of one small range of femininity and the lack of options and different role models available for girls and women that concern me deeply. This can’t be separated from the pink campaign; as SCACO said it’s the tip of the iceberg.
I’ll just add here that I’m really enjoying this thread, and it’s lovely to have a good discussion and argument with people who don’t agree on everything. It’s made me think a lot and question myself, which is surely the purpose of this kind of thread. Thanks everyone! xx
Bubbletrouble, don’t get me wrong, I think that there is a particular female stereotype, epitomised by the jordan/footballers wife style, that I find particularly horrible, because it objectifies women, and presents them as mindless and trivial (although I’m sure these women would say they are in fact fine examples of wealthy, liberated women). It’s just for true equality to exist, female stereotypes, even of the pink, fluffy kind, have to be regarded as equal. All human beings are equal, and if we say that portraying them as pink and fluffy perpetuates inequality, we are in a sense adopting the argument. What we need to say in my view, is that yes, pink and fluffy is one female stereotype, but pink and fluffy females are as equal, strong and liberated as anybody else.
I noticed an ad on the telly for a program with Anna Richardson called something like “stop pimping our kids”, about the sexualisation of young girls. Not sure when it’s on, but would be worth a look. There’s LOTS of pink being rammed down our daughters’ throats but not, in my opinion, as equal, strong or liberated.
Hi LG and CM.
I agree with you to an extent LG whilst also agreeing with you CM(!)
I would hate to judge anyone and we’re all bombarded with media images and peer pressure from a young age. I see what you mean LG about the criticism of the culture becoming a criticism of individuals/groups, and this is an enormously difficult area to navigate. That’s pretty much what happened to feminism in the 1970s with the huge split between the radicals and the rest and it became very personal and generated a whole heap of misunderstandings that still persist.
I really hope I haven’t given the impression that I’m against ‘pink and fluffy’ women - I’m not. I’m against the stereotype and the lack of choices of acceptable femininities ‘allowed’ by our culture. I think it does a disservice to girls and women and limits their development as people. There’s also a danger of portraying the ‘pink and fluffy’ as victims of the culture, which causes further issues. It’s a minefield and one that I feel the pink campaign would be better to avoid.
We’re caught in a crazy cycle of sexualising then ‘pink and fluffying’ to de-sexualise/infantilise, and I wish we could stop it. It’s not helping us.
I’ll look out for the programme CM, sounds interesting.
The programme you are talking about CM is The Sex Education Show and it is on Channel 4. This is about the third series I think of this and if you watch it is is most interesting. I agree with the “stop pimping our kids” approach to the clothing particularly underwear that is aimed at children as young as 6! I do not have a daughter but I think whilst I hated it as a young girl when my father would NOT let me have a heel on my shoes (oh dear it was loafers for me at all times), shortish skirts, make-up etc until I was 16 it stood me in very good stead and now as an adult I do not feel any need to conform to any stereotypical image of what society thinks a woman should look like (god help anyone who considers Jordan a role model!!). I do like nice clothes, high heels and girlie things but I do not dress like a s**t and never ever intend to do so (certainly not at my age anyway!!!).
Whilst I hate to open the dreaded “can of worms” on this I do believe that the young girls who have these little ones are still children themselves and when buying this c**p for their children it is because they have little or no concept of the implication it contains. I am, sorry to say it, probably considered old fashioned in my beliefs but I think children should be children and the grown up stuff should be introduced at a much later stage.
Be warned if you are easily embarrassed this programme should be watched whilst on your own and not in company as it pulls no punches!!!
Tracy xx
What I am against is not the ‘pink and fluffy’ femininity which is often part of being a girl/woman but the implication that breast cancer-a disease which kills so many of those same women is, by association, also ‘fluffy and pink’ we are all ‘tickled pink’ by the frills and feathers…of course we are-some of us might even die laughing!
I have daughters and granddaughters-the youngsters love to wear pink and so on that’s fine.Oh why cant some media folk see that the innocence of pink has no place in a festering,foul disease.
I couldn’t agree more Horace- there’s nothing pink + fluffy about this deadly disease that tears families apart. I can’t say I was tickled pink about being diagnosed terminally ill aged 32 
Dont think my family think the pink + fluffy thing is appropriate either, especially my little boy aged 23 months who faces a future without his mummy to look after him
whilst I appreciate the funds these capaigns bring in, I think there is far too mch trivialisation of this deadly disease. Even though the majority survive, they are emtionally + physically scarred by the ordeal + often live in absolute fear of ‘it’ returning.
Just my opinion but one I feel strongly about…
tina x
hear hear Horace and Gingerbud
Julie xxx
Thanks for the info Tracey, and I don’t think you’re old fashioned at all!
Horace and Gingerbud I agree with you absolutely about the trivialisation of bc. We’ve been trying to put this into some kind of context and to think why it happened, which is where the long discussion about stereotypes and pink and fluffy culture came from. It really is linked in my view. Very best wishes,
Lynne xx
Is pink and fluffy desexualised? I like pink. And fluffy. And I’m a business owner in a male-dominated industry when I’m not undergoing treatment for breast cancer. Pink is one of the most relaxing colours, and immensely feminine (in my own view).
For me, breast cancer has such power to strip away femininity - the loss of breast, hair, eyebrows, eyelashes, sex drive etc. Something that adds back “hey, I’m actually female and proud of it” works for me. Others may of course have very different perspectives, which is fine.
Ann
I notice quite a few people imply, or even express, that without the “pink pulp” (my own term) we would somehow not have the funds raised by said approach and that any means to the end is alright. I’m not saying it isn’t but I think there should be some measure of censorship, for want of a better word. I like to think we would come up with more creative and, dare I say, mature ideas to raise funds in ways that emphasise the grim reality of BC rather than pinkify it.
Anyway, it’s a really good thread and we’re all giving each other food for thought.
P.S. Someone mentioned The History of the Breast, another good read is Bathsheba’s Breast. It sadly reinforced that the surgical treatment of BC is often still barbaric.
details for the programme mentioned by CM and Tracey, tonight C4
I’m not sure what the pimping of children has got to do with the pink Breast Cancer Campaign. Parents who buy sluttish clothes that sexualise young children are despicable in my personal opinion (because ignorance is not an excuse). However, I think it is insulting to parents who just buy pink dresses for little girls to lump them in with parents those who buy are happy to buy leopard print thongs.
It’s very sad that the pink BC campaign is being associated with the sexualisation of children, because it will tarnish the campaign.
LG the pink campaign is not being associated with pimping children, the discussion has touched on this because of the broad cultural links between what’s happening generally to femininity, and the notion of a pink campaign. I thought that was fairly clear (!) from the discussion. If you saw the programme, it was interesting how the sexualisation of children was denied by the big stores involved. The clothing in question was predominantly pink (because that makes it ok).
Everyone is entitled to their own view of course, but I still don’t get how women or children being portrayed as pink and fluffy, is in anyway connected with the sexualisation/pimping of children. i mean a parent who dresses a little girl in a pink frock is just conforming to a harmless stereotype (blue for boy’s, pink for girls), whereas a parent who dresses a little girl in a pink leopardskin print bra and thong with weird slogans, is conforming to something much more sinister.
I personally believe, that in order for women to be truly equal, feminine stereotypes even of the pink and fluffy kind must be regarded as equal. The idea that pink and fluffy is a symbol of inequality, just perpetuates the idea that anything female is unequal?
Whilst I do not want to appear to be trying to cause an issue here I just want to say this oh dear oh dear oh dear!!!
We all appear to have gone totally off track with this and I will only add that at no time certainly on my part or I feel on the part of other posters was there any suggestion that pink and fluffy is connected with sexualisation/pimping of children. CM just mentioned the programme and I just added to this as it is a very interesting programme to watch.
I would also add that if it takes pink and fluffy to raise money to help fund research into cancer and in particular Triple Negative cancer as I have then I applaud it. Sometimes one has to look outside the box and not go immediately to the negative. Yes this is a hideous disease, yes it does end the lives of some women far too young leaving young children behind, yes it causes emotional scars you are left with for life BUT it is your own personal choice to carry this rather than look at the positives, it is your choice to consider your diagnosis as a death sentence and it is your choice to fight it with all the strength you have and the advances in MEDICAL RESEARCH to prolong your life.
Oh and consider this…as a woman having faced this disease and all the emotions you go through you DO come out the other side a stronger person ready to face the rest of your life head on.
Tracy x