Things tend to happen for a reason. Why green? has the world gone mad? We're actually subservient to our genetics much more to our culture. Maybe green gets those people more mates, thus its been standardized. Maybe greeting others in a friendly matter means a larger social circle and more dates.
We're not terribly removed from animals and the mechanics of evolution control our culture, just like we see with animals. There's some wiggle room but for the most part is not arbitrary nonsense.
The same way many cultures, even ones with no connection, have standardized dresses for women, typically. A dress is a clever garment. Varying the hem determines how revealing and sexy it is thus a young woman would have a short hem and an older one not looking for a mate might not. On top of the design naturally showcasing the bust and the ability to trivially modify it to show more arms, back, and cleavage.
Going back to the story, gender is, in humans, a complicated mess. Probably is in other species too (it's not just male dogs who try to hump your leg… although is that a sign of trans male dogs or just reusing an existing behaviour for multiple situations, the female canine behavioural equivalent of male nipples?)
Yes, some things happen for a clear reason, but sometimes the reason is "that's not a harmful mutation".
That the fashionable seasonable colors is associated with the feminine gender is true, but it says nothing about whether it's an inherent trait, as you imply, or something created by society.
I have to say I'm quite suspicious of inherent genetic traits that only reveal themselves when the textile industry appears and has to find ways to get people to buy more product.
It is entirely reasonable to assume that there is a biological basis for the sex differences in men and womens fashion. There may not be proof that the sex differences are innate, but it's reasonable to propose that they are innate.
By the same token, it is unreasonable to deny that these sex differences are innate, until such time as proof is offered.
> I have to say I'm quite suspicious of inherent genetic traits that only reveal themselves when the textile industry appears
There's also every reason to believe that people were modifying their appearance before textiles were around. See scarification, use of colored clays / paints, etc. Even something like singing can be used as a way to attract mates. There's no reason to pick textiles as the sole use of fashion.
Regarding the example, I was picking on one given, particularly on the seasonable part. I realize people were adorning themselves before the industrial revolution. But then again, people of all genders were doing that.
I mean, I don't trust the processed food industry either, and will readily admit that they do everything they can to manipulate human desires for profit. Do people have an innate desire for Coke and chicken nuggets? No. But looking at what the industry does, and then using that to conclude that (most) humans have no instinctual tendency towards sugar and high fat foods seems mistaken.
Many more people are certain of their sex than of their gender. That's the whole point of analyzing cases like this.
There are a few gender differences that I find quite obviously to be social constructs.
Things like pink/blue or dresses/pants? There's nothing innate about those preferences, we're obviously taught "x is for boys" and "y is for girls" about a lot of things.
What I'm saying is that the assumption that gendered color preferences are pushed on children is, IMO, faulty. Most parents I've talked to have the same experience as me: their children identified their own gender, figured out what people of that gender do by looking around at the world, then started imitating that.
You're assuming that gender roles are pushed onto children. My experience (and the experience of most parents I know) is that parents are too busy to really care about trying to indoctrinate their children into the proper gender role.
The kids indoctrinate themselves.
Well of course. I'm not saying babies reinvent gender roles every generation. I'm saying the opposite. Society is the one who defines gender roles and teaches the kids what's expected of them. Like in the article.
>>> What I'm saying is that the assumption that gendered color preferences are pushed on children is, IMO, faulty
I never said pushed. But the fact that pink is seen as a feminin colour or that boys don't wear skirts because reasons is entirely made up. There's nothing innate about it.
>>> You're assuming that gender roles are pushed onto children.
I never said pushed. I'm saying it's not innate.
>>> The kids indoctrinate themselves
Again, that doesn't mean it's innate.
I have a boy and its obvious gender differences are innate, not learned. It was somewhat eye-opening as I was raised with the "gender is a construct" theory even though I was fairly skeptical of it. Other parents I've spoken to have noticed the same thing.
I think we're going to look back to this period and think "wait, did people really think gender was 100% social" the same way we think back to things like, say, phrenology or classifying homosexuality as a mental illness.