http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/pink-and-blue-Frankli...
The effect of this is two-fold; firstly, you're seeing a small segment of society, and secondly, because having a photograph taken is special, you're not seeing everyday clothing.
I can't wait for the day people just don't give a crap if the 5 year old has a dick or not.
lmao. "agendas".
Pink as an effeminate color has always seemed kind of arbitrary to me. I just can't see how a color would have a specific gender.
I was talking specifically about those who used clothing with that intent, not people who just go with what's fashionable and don't care much to or forth.
> What if people like differentiation?
I guess then that is what they like?
> Your comments imply that it's bad.
It does? I think enforcing gender roles is a generally a silly pursuit, since I believe more in nature than nurture (though as I've said it isn't always even the goal), and because I think that it can easily lead to a majority ("straight" gendered) suppressing a minority. When it comes to clothing, it's more of an interesting socio-historical thing to me, since I don't think it matters much one way or the other.
> I come from a family with adopted siblings. My siblings are very similar to their biological parents, who were unknown to them (and all of us) until they were 20+. Let me put it another way... They don't just share similar genes in their "appearance". From where I sit, nurture plays very little in shaping a person in a benevolent environment. I have decades of case study around me to support that view.
Ok. Hmm. Is this the part where I'm supposed to violently disagree with you?
> If girls want to wear pink, it's not a bad thing, nor should it be seen as so.
But I think that it's a bad thing? Ok.
Just my two subjective cents.
You're excusing yourself for being crude? How is this crude?
> Sorry to be crude, but there is a very non-arbitrary reason for pink to be associated with females (and to a lesser extent, blue with males). In fact I always assumed this was indeed the cause for the association - I'm very surprised to learn it used to be reversed.
So what is the non-arbitrary reason? The one mentioned in the article?
To admittedly simplify something that varied by time/place and was fairly complex, here's one take: all children wore "feminine" clothing at a young age, and were primarily cared for by women (mother or, for wealthier families, female nannies). Boys started wearing more "masculine" elements of clothing as they grew older, eventually "graduating" to trousers (sometimes via an intermediate period of shorts), which often coincided with social movement to the company of the male side of the household and the boy being considered a "young man". There are still some pretty strong normative gender roles there, with "feminine" clothing still associated with non-manliness, just organized along a somewhat different pattern and timeline.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply not worry about gender at all and simply use your sex in any way you please?
The people who do this fit into the box marked 'genderqueer'.
"Dar Williams - When I was a Boy" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE5YzRr9yPo
http://www.metrolyrics.com/when-i-was-a-boy-lyrics-dar-willi...
We sought to keep our baby clothes especially and up to about age 3 clothes as neutral as possible for that reason.
1. Boys more often had square collars. For example, if you look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_children_of_Charl..., the girl on the left has a rounded collar, while the boy 2nd-from-left has a squared-off collar.
2. Boys sometimes wore bands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bands_(neckwear) ). Due to their frequent use of lace they often are perceived as feminine today, but were perceived as masculine at the time. You can sort of see that on Roosevelt in the linked article. Some clearer examples are visible in the Wikipedia gallery of unbreeched boys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)#Gallery
Source, unfortunately paywalled (and it's a very minor part of the article, so not necessarily worth digging up unless you're interested in the main article subject): http://www.jstor.org/stable/1923418
What has "always" been true usually has very definite origins, sometimes quite recent.
More pissed off with the pink toy aisles. I can buy my boys a semi-decent quality kitchen to play Gordon Ramsey in for $110 AUD on special at the same store available in pastel pink only (all the kitchens stuff has pictures of girls on it and is pink - all designed by or for Americans I guess). A similar gender neutral product in the same store is available by online order only for nearly twice the price. So the boys have a pink kitchen because fuck it - boys cook and women haven't been trapped in a kitchen for decades.
That is the bit of history I'd like to read far more about, from primary sources. Specifically to suss out whether manufacturers and retailers interpreted these color preferences or manufactured them.
Also, it's annoying when sites inject links and other shit into copying and pasting a sentence from the article to quote it elsewhere.
(Source: talk on Vikings at Jorvik Viking museum/village)
As opposed to all other demographic segments?
