Sorry for taking so long to respond to this. I've been carefully mulling it over the last few days.

> I think people should make diverse aesthetically pleasing things (even if only some people find some of those things to be aesthetically pleasing).

I agree completely.

> The world needs diverse things and something for all tastes.

I agree here as well.

> What I dislike very much, however, is strict bucketing or stereotypically selling those things.

I understand why someone might find that distasteful. The problem is that marketing budgets are only so big, and companies need to identify some well-defined subset(s) of the population in order to effectively advertise and (hopefully, to them) sell their products. Perhaps it's unfortunate, but the straightforward way to advertise to some group of people is to identify things that some large percentage of them have in common, and appeal to those things. If the selected strategy doesn't work, it's time to abandon it and come up with a new one. If Kyome's advertisements have been along the same lines for some time, then it's likely that it's been effective. If the adverts aren't working, Kyome will eventually ditch them in favor of something else. For what it's worth, there is (usually) no ill intent behind it -- it all just comes down to trying to effectively advertise without spending a fortune creating tailored advertisements for everybody. If you let it get to you, then you're going to be constantly offended by all the advertisements that (unfortunately) fills the modern world.

> Pink drills? Why not, though maybe blue, green, orange, magenta and so on drills would also be cool to have. And please don’t write “drills for the female renovator” above them.

Again in agreement.

> Also, if there is only one shitty pink drill and the rest of the stuff is not available in pink, wouldn’t you say that sends a message, too? It says something about how normal it is for women to do e.g. home renovations. It says something about their status and role and as such is pretty shitty. See the wider context.

I didn't notice any other pink tools, but if they were there, it's likely I overlooked them. I'm not the most observant person in the world, especially when I'm locked on target. The only reason I even noticed the pink drill was because it was out of place, not with the other drills, but on the counter with the "display models" of a bunch of handsaws rather than on a shelf.

The thing is, up until recently, it hasn't been normal for women to do home renovations in the US. There has been growing interest in DIY home improvement and construction projects among women in just the last few years. Of course, there have long been some women interested in it (my mom, for example), but they didn't constitute a large enough segment of the market to convince companies to produce demographic-targeted tools. That's apparently beginning to change.

> (Also, your assumption that you are somehow uniquely positioned for glasses for people looking at screens all day is itself somehow weirdly sexist. So many people look at screens all day for all kinds of reasons, irrespective of their gender.)

I've read and re-read what I wrote here, and I couldn't at first figure out where you got the idea that I think I'm somehow "uniquely positioned" for such glasses. I gather that you're German, though I'm not sure German is your native tongue (your written English is very good). If it is, it may be a "language barrier" type thing, and I think the misunderstanding likely comes from this phrase: "someone is finally making glasses for me". I can see how that might be taken to mean that I thought the manufacturer literally had me specifically in mind when creating their product or their advertisement. However, this is a common figure of speech (a hyponymic form of synecdoche) in US English that I suppose could be read "for me and people like me in some relevant way", with the subtext that it feels as though they might as well have had me in mind while creating it. One alternative, "for us", is too nonspecific and ambiguous -- who's "us" in this case? me and you? unspecified people I happened to be with when the event was occurring? everyone in the whole world? glasses-wearing people who look at computer screens all day?. Compared to "for us", "for me" also puts more emphasis on the fact that I myself am a member of the group (to the point that it might even be the only reason why I care). Another alternative, "for people who wear glasses and spend all day looking at computer screens", while it has the virtue of specificity and unambiguity, is just way too verbose. One middle-of-the-road alternative would be to say "for me and people like me", which itself is perhaps ambiguous enough to lead to similar confusion because it doesn't specify in what way(s) the referents are similar to myself. I hope that helps clear that up. Please let me know if I've made any wrong assumptions here or if I'm not making sense.

Finally, I really don't know how you're able to read sexism into that little anecdote. I didn't mention gender or sex in it anywhere. I didn't even use any words that connote or otherwise imply gender. Regardless, you don't know me and you don't know anything about my gender, but your assumptions here have left me too confused to be offended.

If you have suggestions on how I could make my use of language better or more clear in the future, please let me know. I'm always striving to improve my communication skills.