firecat: man grimacing (grimace)
[personal profile] firecat
Probably Sociological Images has covered this already, but the first I saw the mentioned was in a New York Times article about accessories for e-readers.

Altec Lansing "Bliss" in-ear 'phones

Language used to describe headphones:
  • "silver," "gold," "platinum" (designating price points and the fake jewel visible when you insert the earphones)
  • "petite size"
  • "designed to fit snugly"
  • "vibrant, feminine hues"
  • "Snug Fitâ„¢ design" (to be fair, this term is also used to describe their 'phones that don't seem to be marketed specifically for women)
  • "contemporary colors"
  • "jewel styling"
This review claims that they are mediocre 'phones for the price:

On the planet where I come from, they also have 'phones for people with smaller ears and 'phones for people who like bright colors. But they are labeled "small" and "festive colors" rather than "for women."

The company (also referenced in the NYT article) seems to come from my planet.
These phones also have a fake jewel on the end and come in bright colors, and language used to describe them could also be said to be gendered, but more than one gender is referenced. Starting with "luxury metal bling" in the URL and moving on to "Daring, rugged...Shimmering, complex geometric surfaces that beg to be held and touched. Glamorous, extravagant flare...couture...stunning, ...choreographed...luxurious satin finish...brilliant, sparkling platinum grooves....handsomely finished...polished"

Date: 24 Feb 2012 02:42 am (UTC)
epershand: An ampersand (Default)
From: [personal profile] epershand
I find myself mostly just very, very startled by the fact that the ilounge review considers headphones in the $50-$70 range to be so inexpensive as to be likely to be undifferentiated as a product. I would think very hard about buying earbuds that pricey, especially given the sound quality of these guys, my earbuds of choice, at a whopping $10.

All in all, confusing both on a gender and price front.

Date: 24 Feb 2012 03:03 am (UTC)
lilacsigil: 12 Apostles rocks, text "Rock On" (12 Apostles)
From: [personal profile] lilacsigil
That is confusing! I mean, I like small earbuds, but so does my dad. He's the one who gave me these small ears! I have bought earbuds in the $50 range (to get small ones) but I consider that wildly expensive for earbuds!

Date: 24 Feb 2012 02:35 pm (UTC)
musyc: Stock photo of a flower, tinted purple by post-processing (Purple: Flower)
From: [personal profile] musyc
I'm with [personal profile] epershand on the pricing. Seventy dollars = inexpensive? I was boggling at that myself. The way I use earphones, I won't pay more than $20 for them, and I still consider that outrageously expensive. I have found one shape comfortable for my ears. I'm certainly not going to spend upwards of fifty bucks only to discover the shape is bad.

Date: 24 Feb 2012 09:43 pm (UTC)
treecat: (Default)
From: [personal profile] treecat
The last product description is a bit over-the-top with soooo many adjectives, but it's also more appealing. That mix is somewhat intriguing to imagine all in one item. If I were looking for earphones durable and comfortable and lightweight would be my criteria before what image they projected.

If it's described in solely feminine terms I'd expect it to be more fragile. If it's described in solely masculine ones I'd expect it to be too bulky and rigid.


firecat: red panda looking happy (Default)
firecat (attention machine in need of calibration)

March 2019

10111213 141516


Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 18 Mar 2019 07:28 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios