Long afterward, Oedipus, old and blinded, walked the
roads. He smelled a familiar smell. It was
the Sphinx. Oedipus said, 'I want to ask one question.
Why didn't I recognize my mother?' 'You gave the
wrong answer,' said the Sphinx. 'But that was what
made everything possible,' said Oedipus. 'No,' she said.
'When I asked, "What walks on four legs in the morning,
two at noon, and three in the evening," you answered,
"Man." You didn't say anything about woman.'
'When you say Man,' said Oedipus, 'you include women
too. Everyone knows that.' She said, 'That's what
you think.'

Muriel R. Schulz, 1975, 'The semantic derogation of woman', in Language and Sex, eds, B. Thorn and N. Henley, Rowley MA: Newbury House Publishers, pp. 66-7

Gender Division in Big W catalogues

Gender/sex divisions are really rampant in society. I mean, while sex divisions may occur for biologically reasons, gender reasons have no cause, I think. 

Below is a page from a Big W catalogue:

There is an immediate division. The girl is outfitted in pink (oh, yes, the only colour that little girls can wear, apparently. All things girls are all things pink!), and the two sets of pink (and kinda purple, but still in the same colour-area) on the same 'row' obviously are targeted - or rather - made for girls. Whilst the little boy gets the dark-blue colours (in the same way that all things girls are pink, people seem to think that all boys only like blue), and again, two sets of clothing on the same row directly correspond to a boy wearing it.
Other than the clothes, something else strikes me. Their poses. The girl has her knees bent in - a sign of cuteness, shyness, and her body is bent away from the camera. The boy, on the other hand has a firm pose, staring more-confidently forward. Again, what does this say about what girls and boys need to conform to. Girl = pink = 'weaker', boy = blue = 'stronger'.

Next up, from the same catalogue;

The boys are wearing darker colours - blue again, and it's close cousin green. The two girls are wearing pink (darker, but still pink-y) and innocent, innocent white.

By boy's faces are facing directly forward. Both of the girls' faces are facing the camera on an angle. Between the two youngest, the contrast in their pose is strong. The boy stands legs appear, arms by his side and looking forward. His head is also tilt up, a sign of confidence, pride, maybe superiority. The girl on the other hand has one hand tucked away, other hand shyly in the hair. Her face is facing partly away and looking down - She looks at the camera through her lashes. In short, compared to the other boy, her pose is somewhat playful, but meek, and, with her head titled slightly downwards, subservient. Any remnant of her stronger -legs apart-ness are ruined by the 'conveniently' placed words/price (in more ways than one)

You can't entirely blame Big W for doing this. Mainstream society does seem to see in this divisionalistic way. But you can blame them for continuing to promote it, especially on things that don't need a gender/sex division.

Word and thought for the day

Pejorative

disparaging; derogatory; insulting

 The English language is rather discriminative and pejorative towards women, reflecting a long held world view of the dominant group (i.e. men), and accepted and believed by many of the muted group (i.e., women) Phrases such as husband and wife, brother and sister and men and women sound rather familiar and though many would deny it today, the fact that the male came first reflected the supposedly objective world view held by the patriarchs - that man was the normative and came first in the natural order (does the Bible's creation story ring a bell?), and that woman was deviant, unnatural, non-normative.

The creation story of the Bible calls that Adam was created first, and that Eve was created from the rib of Adam (reducing worth of women already -to that of a rib! Furthermore, this is a gross inversion of Eve born of Adam, female born from male, rather than female giving birth to male). The snake tempts/tricks Eve into eating The Apple (side note: the snake has been the sign of fertility of many supposedly 'pagan' religions before the advancement of Christianity - portraying the snake as the sign of evil also equated to saying that all other religions were evil). When Eve convinces Adam to eat the Apple, who cops the blame?
Well, the woman, of course! Eve obviously seduced and tricked Adam into eating it! Of course, Adam, being male, can't be stupid! It's not his fault he consented to eating it! It was entirely against his will - he was coerced, absolutely! /SARCASM
As Gail Shulman (1974) says it more succintly;

'Rather than blaming the man for his weakness in yielding to temptation, the woman is branded as dangerous, irresistible temptress'

Shulman, Gail, 1974, 'View from the back of the synagogue: women in Judaism', in Alce Hageman (ed.) Sexist Religion and Women in the Church, in Dale Spender, Man Made Language, p168

Of course, there are other Christain Creation stories, just that the one above is the most well known and favoured one.

Then there's Yin and Yang. They are suppossedly equal, but think about it; Yin represents dark, low, cold, female while yang represents light, high, hot, male. Again, man comes on top, as reflected in the society where this 'duality' originates from.

Indeed, the English language is pejorative to the muted, female group.