Hey, I’m just channeling here the wording Chronos used in Post #4. What should the wording be? Okay, let’s make it clear (I think) that the variations in shampoo refer to degree of oiliness of the hair. What words or phrases should be used to indicate “more oily than normal”, “less oily than normal”, and “Goldilocks hair (juuuuuuust right!)”.
ETA: BTW, when there’s nothing left but pronouns, that will be the worst of all worlds, given the prevailing situations about, you know, pronouns.
“…then they came for me…”
Surveys that Unilever commissioned. I’d hesitate to call something backlash when it was the company that went out and asked people how they felt about the way the products are being marketed.
No idea, I’m not in marketing. I’m certain they’ll figure something out.
[tangential topic]
As for pronouns (getting a tad off-topic here), of course there have been many attempts to introduce gender-neutral pronouns (besides the impersonal “it”), none of which seem to have gained much traction. Personally, I kind of like those pronouns that @acsenray has been using: E, em, es, although I’ve questioned why E is capitalized.
[/tangential topic]
The point made in the article is that they aren’t going to do any of that anymore. They’re not going to market their (for example) shampoo to certain types of hair but instead tell you about the shampoo. Sort of an ‘attack the post, not the poster’ distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
I never understood what was wrong with they/them? I know some people couldn’t quite grasp it. Kinda the way some people can’t see a magic eye picture and others can’t understand how you can’t see it. The way I always explained it was that if I told you my friend was going to stop over and pick something up, you might respond by asking ‘okay, what time will they be here’?. There ya go, gender neutral pronoun.
The problem with they/them/their is well known and well understood (by some): In certain uses, these are ambiguous as to whether they are singular or plural. The standard rebuttal, that these have been used is these ways for centuries, is no rebuttal at all. These pronouns have always been ambiguously singular or plural including some cases where you want to know which but can’t easily tell from the context. We really do need a good set of gender-neutral singular pronouns, and them/they/their aren’t those.
I appreciate that Unilever is trying to be inclusive and all that stuff, but I’ve been using Dove soap (what they call a “beauty bar”) for a long time and it didn’t seem to be gendered. But now they sell Dove Men+Care products, suggesting that the soap I’ve been buying all this time is for the ladies.
The very use of the word “beauty”, relating to skin-care or cosmetic products, has been stereotyped since forever as applying to products targeted at female customers.
Is there, in fact, any bona-fide difference to between “men’s” versus “women’s” cosmetic products? Relating to skin care? Relating to hair care? Are there known sex-specific differences between men’s skin/hair and women’s skin/hair?
^^^Would the difference include the scents? I see a lot of women’s shampoos that come in scents like lilac, apple blossom, etc. Men’s shampoo doesn’t. (I wouldn’t use it even it did).
Could well be. I hadn’t ever really thought of that. I have noticed, though, when buying “normal” shampoo (which I had come to understand to mean “not one of those 75 different scents/colors/oil-rankings”), it has become ever harder to find what I seek among the varieties that line the Shampoo aisle from horizon to horizon. Last time I managed to find a “plain old (normal?) shampoo”, I bought a whole case of them, for fear that I’ll never find them again.
“When you find a product you like, buy a lifetime supply because they’ll quit making it.”
Damn. I’ve been using ladies’ soap for decades. I suppose the fact that the soap is available in white or pink should have been a clue. (In actuality, my mother uses the soap because they have a product they call hypoallergenic, which is unscented, so although I’m on my own, I still buy the unscented variety, along with unscented detergent and other products. I don’t think the Dove Men+Care soap is available unscented.)
Say what??? If I want good old American Masculine He-Man products, it has to be scented now?
The only scented product I care to buy is Barbecue Sauce! Is this what I’ll have to shampoo my hair with once my lifetime supply of NORMAL shampoo runs out? (Hey, I might actually try that.)
Okay, going all the way back to this point: That’s true, my “normal” shampoo (which isn’t Unilever BTW) doesn’t say anywhere on it what it is “normal” of. I’m pretty sure it means “normal oiliness” (whatever that is), but you would not know that from looking at the bottle. You’d only know it refers to some (undefined?) scale of oiliness by noting that nearby bottles on the shelf are marked “for oily hair” and “for dry hair” or similar. (Calling it “original version” doesn’t help.) So what would it be called? “For mid-sebaceous hair”?
I always assumed that the “for oily/dry/bleached/whatever hair” was pretty much advertising bumf, so I just get the one I like the smell of.
Am I not normal??
If you are unaffected in your consumer habits by advertising bumf, then no, you aren’t normal. All those product manufacturers aren’t marketing to you, you oddball you.
Another example of what Unilever is trying to do; for a long time, Band-Aid brand bandages were sold only in pink, which they called “flesh-colored”. Obviously pink doesn’t match flesh tones for everyone.
And yet, somehow, none of these people have this problem with ‘you’, which, FTR, has a much shorter pedigree as a singular pronoun, so, nobody has any excuse for thinking ‘they’ is confusing.
Everybody who thinks “you” is confusing has an excuse to do so, not to mention the ambiguous 3rd person plural pronouns. How many times do you (yes, you) see constructs like:
right here on this board? A singular “you” would make clear that one is speaking to you specifically, a plural “you” would make clear that one is speaking to the group. It’s a total failure of English that this distinction, once present, has been largely lost.
If one means the “generic you”, one can use the word “one” (as Cecil emself routinely did). This is a perfectly standard construct in French, but is not popular in English, where it seems kind of stilted.
And furthermore . . .
The need for the long-lost plural vs singular “you” is made plainly clear in modern English usage, where various regional dialects have evolved substitutes for it: “youse”, “you all” or “y’all”, “all you all”, etc.
These exist because people feel the need to have a plural “you” that is distinct from the singular, and these forms have arisen to meet the need. (I wonder, though, why the archaic forms didn’t simply fall into common use again.)
“Normal” doesn’t mean “original”, and it doesn’t mean “between two extremes”. It means “constituting a norm or standard against which other cases may be judged”, and cases which don’t conform to the norm are “abnormal”. Hence it’s, um, a sensitive word to use in connection with characteristics associated with a particular race, ethnicity, gender, etd.