The "why" this is a moral question is, for the most part, the same across the board for any issue of this nature, and can be broken down into 3 parts:
1) The origins of a product being engendered lies in the culture's historic marginalization of certain groups and/or gender-specific mores that allowed X group to partake but it was a no-no/frowned upon for another group. Therefore the evolution of an engendered product is almost never a natural one in terms of freedom of choice. Certainly, beer has been and still is predominantly consumed by men. But this was (and still is) arguably not a byproduct of natural inclinations or preferences between the groups. But rather, a targeted result. Not, admittedly, by the sellers of the product but more often by the moral/mores police of the time. X was for X group. No upright/proper member of another group should partake of it, the end.
2) Therefore, continuing to adhere to engendered marketing is an extension of the original self-fulfilling prophecy. If we continue to suggest to and convince groups that X product is made specifically for one, but exclude any other from similar suggestions, then the cultural belief - and therefore practices - for the most part remain this.
3) Will it be a risk, financially, to try to reshape this view and preferences between the groups? Absolutely. No one (I don't think) is arguing that there isn't risk here. But the argument for why it's a MORAL issue to keep on keeping on and never evolve the message is because it then continues artificial and unfair stereotypes, with all the marketing and financial muscle of very big brands working directly against any other group's attempts at progress on this front.
Freeing ourselves from very old engendering in commercial products is going to be a long, uphill battle. Which will be made all the longer if corporations with the reach and resources consistently work against it. They've done very well for themselves by riding the coattails of the old stereotypes in the first place. Do they then have no moral obligation to assist in the culture evolving when the marginalized groups within the culture would like to?
The conversation is whether they do or don't, given the sociological understanding of the above!
The "why" this is a moral question is, for the most part, the same across the board for any issue of this nature, and can be broken down into 3 parts:
1) The origins of a product being engendered lies in the culture's historic marginalization of certain groups and/or gender-specific mores that allowed X group to partake but it was a no-no/frowned upon for another group. Therefore the evolution of an engendered product is almost never a natural one in terms of freedom of choice. Certainly, beer has been and still is predominantly consumed by men. But this was (and still is) arguably not a byproduct of natural inclinations or preferences between the groups. But rather, a targeted result. Not, admittedly, by the sellers of the product but more often by the moral/mores police of the time. X was for X group. No upright/proper member of another group should partake of it, the end.
2) Therefore, continuing to adhere to engendered marketing is an extension of the original self-fulfilling prophecy. If we continue to suggest to and convince groups that X product is made specifically for one, but exclude any other from similar suggestions, then the cultural belief - and therefore practices - for the most part remain this.
3) Will it be a risk, financially, to try to reshape this view and preferences between the groups? Absolutely. No one (I don't think) is arguing that there isn't risk here. But the argument for why it's a MORAL issue to keep on keeping on and never evolve the message is because it then continues artificial and unfair stereotypes, with all the marketing and financial muscle of very big brands working directly against any other group's attempts at progress on this front.
Freeing ourselves from very old engendering in commercial products is going to be a long, uphill battle. Which will be made all the longer if corporations with the reach and resources consistently work against it. They've done very well for themselves by riding the coattails of the old stereotypes in the first place. Do they then have no moral obligation to assist in the culture evolving when the marginalized groups within the culture would like to?
The conversation is whether they do or don't, given the sociological understanding of the above!