Market gender segregation

2014
france

Gender segregation in the market refers to the division of products, services, and marketing strategies based on the perceived preferences and needs of specific genders. This can result in the creation of separate markets for men and women, where certain products or services are targeted exclusively towards one gender.

One example of market gender segregation is the separation of clothing and fashion lines. Many retailers and brands have distinct sections for men's and women's clothing, with different styles, designs, and marketing approaches. This practice assumes that specific genders have unique preferences when it comes to fashion and that they should be catered to separately.

Another example is the marketing of toys and games. Toy manufacturers often create gender-specific toys, such as dolls and cooking sets for girls and action figures and construction sets for boys. This type of gendered marketing perpetuates stereotypes about what is considered appropriate for each gender, limiting children's choices and reinforcing gender norms.

While market gender segregation can be based on assumptions and stereotypes, some argue that it is a valid marketing strategy that considers the varying preferences and needs of different demographics. However, others argue that it reinforces harmful gender stereotypes and limits individuals' freedom of choice. There is ongoing debate and discussion about the merits and effects of gender segregation in the market.

Further reading

Coron C.; Schmidt G. (2022) "The ‘Gender Face’ of Job Insecurity in France: An Individual and Organizational Level Analysis", Work, Employment and Society, 36(6), pp. 999-1017. SAGE Publications Ltd. DOI: 10.1177/0950017021995673

Heo S.; Yoon S.; Chun J. (2019) "Glass ceilings in Korea: A quantile decomposition approach", International Journal of Economics and Management, 13(2), pp. 371-380. Universita Putra Malaysia. DOI: [1]

Eydoux A. (2014) "Women during recessions in France and Germany the gender biases of public policies", Revue de l'OFCE, 133(2), pp. 153-188. Presses de Sciences Po. DOI: 10.3917/reof.133.0153