What color are their hats?
Well, it depends, right? Pink for the girls, blue for the boys. And if it's not a hat it's the comforter, the diaper or a band around their tiny little hand.
We are obsessed with labeling babies by their gender. Even before they are born, one of the first questions an expecting parent is asked is: is it a boy or a girl?
According to this article, blue and pink didn't become assigned as male and female colors respectively until the 1940s. Before that, there wasn't a universal understanding on the color of sex:
For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.Jo B. Paoletti is an expert in the history of fashion, and very interested in American children's clothing.
In her blog, she talks about different styles throughout history and how they relate to the feminist movement.
She also talks about androgynous clothing and gender neutral clothes, which has been in and out of favor since the 1960s.
 |
| From a Sears catalog, 1973 |
Why do we need to gender babies? All babies do the same but we still treat them differently depending on their sex. And it's not like it really matters, just watch the video below on 1920s clothing. If one thing is for sure, women and men's expectations then were VERY different. So it really isn't about what color they wear or even what they wear.
How do we benefit from gendering? The only reasons I can come up with are 1) keeping the status quo and 2) selling more child specific artifacts (toys, diapers, cribs, wallpaper, bedding, etc.) that is also gender specific.
Is there a health reason I should be aware of? Am I missing the extraordinary social benefit of this binary categorization?
Or is X the way to go?
Something to keep in mind, through all this, is Kelsey Lueptow's point:
"Capitalism means that if the public demand for gender neutral toys rises, the toy companies will comply because even more than they care about perpetuating the current mainstream values, they want your money."I guess a good thing about Capitalism is that they are willing to be less sexist, as long as you pay them.
Well, I don't think going full-on Baby X is the way to go. That seems a bit extreme to me, not to mention difficult. Plus Baby X was always wearing overalls. Ew.
ReplyDeleteThere really isn't any reason to gender babies. Like you said, they all pretty much do the same things. In the end, I think it comes down to two things. The first thing is money. There really isn't any need for different baby products for boys or girls, but if corporations can make money money by having onesies available in blue or pink, I guess you can't really blame them for wanting to cash in on an opportunity.
In my opinion, the other reason is simply because it's how adults were raised. We grow up in a very gendered society. Most people are uncomfortable when they can't tell what sex a person is. Similarly, people get offended when someone thinks their baby is the wrong sex. Gendering babies is pretty much done for the benefit of the parents, not for the baby themselves.
Haha Jackie...
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree that full-on Baby X would be too difficult to achieve, I honestly think that's how children should be raised. If that's how we raised children before the gendering of babies, it wouldn't be any harder than it is for us today to gender babies.
I think it is so silly how much we gender toys and colors. If we break it down and look at the big picture, toys are just things of different shapes, and colors are just.... colors. Nothing more. There is no inherent meaning to each color, that is something we did to ourselves. If gender and sex did not matter, I believe we would not have nearly as much issues as we have today, if at all.
Everyone would be equal, no boys or girls, no gendered work, and so on, but then again I guess companies would have less things to extort money out of us from.
I'm seeing a common trend.... MONEY!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jackie, because babies are... babies... (lol) often times they don't show features that can mark someone necessarily male or female. Trends like longer hair are harder to push onto just women (Duck Dynasty, anyone?) Babies typically don't start growing more than peach fuzz until they are toddler age (or maybe that was just me) (look at my hair now though!)
Also I feel like I've seen much more of a progression of guys wearing pink. 20 years ago a guy would be labeled gay pretty instantly, but with the idea of "metrosexual" and guys just getting over homophobic tendencies, it is certainly more common. My boyfriend has a pink hued shirt that he likes to refer to as "salmon" and I often wonder "does he sound weirder saying salmon or just accepting that its a pink shirt?" haha. Oh, society.
Case & point - the more you buy for your child, the happier your child will be. And the more broke you will be as parents. But hey, your baby looks adorable in his/her gender specific outfit and toys!