It's nine at night, and I'm exploring Wal-Mart, notepad and pencil in hand, looking through infant clothes. Jeez.
As I go down the sections of onesies, pajamas, t-shirts, winter coats, there is one thing that is obvious- the clothes directed towards girls, and the ones directed towards boys. The first thing that stuck out to me was a set of onesies. The "girl" one was pink and said "Mommies Cutie" on the front encased in a heart. The "boy" one was blue and said "Mommies Hero".
Throughout the clothes, words like: sweet, smile, princess, cute, where all over the "girl" clothes. The "boy" clothes had words like: hero, explorer, awesome, cool, champion. This makes it seem as though only boys can be heroes, and awesome explorers; and only girls are sweet smiley. These things are on clothes meant for a child who cannot even read. We are putting them in these boxes before they can talk and form their own opinions.
The "girl" clothes ranged in a variety of shades of about two main colors: pink and purple. All complete with pictures of flowers, hearts, butterflies and polka-dots. The "boy" clothes were blue, green, red, orange and yellow, with images of dogs, trucks and helicopters. Why do we associate these images with sex? How can a butterfly be girly or masculine, it's a fucking butterfly. Same goes for trucks and helicopters!
Even from an early age, we are framing gender into certain perimeters. Girls are to be associated with light, delicate objects and colors, and boys are to be associated with more strong, heavy, tough objects and darker colors. Why do we do that? Why are we raising children who will feel forced to conform to a certain look simply because of their sex.
In chapter two, it is mentioned that one way to define masculinity is whatever is opposite femininity. With the clothes, that seems to be the case. Whatever was not found on a girls shirt- trucks, red, green, blue- was found on a boys shirt. There were footballs on the boy shirts, whereas there was not on the girls. Implying that only boys like football.
All in all, it was interesting to compare infant clothes, to see how they were identical in every other way, aside from color and words, and something so small can dictate whether a boy or a girl will wear it.
I really like how you pointed out the phrases found on the onesies, " The "girl" one was pink and said "Mommies Cutie" on the front encased in a heart. The "boy" one was blue and said "Mommies Hero"." I never really stopped to read the print on kids clothing, but after you brought it up, it brings up a really good point. Why do we associate boys as "heros" that are suppose to protect and save girls, aren't girls able enough to do that for themselves? Even though this phrase is just an innocent print on a onesie, it means a lot when you analyze it.
ReplyDeleteThe language on the clothing promotes an idea of the gendered expectations. To be a girl is to be cute in pink, to be a boy is to be a hero in blue. What makes pink feminine? I was looking at Christmas toy ideas for my daughter and a cool toy car track caught my eye. The idea was shut down by her dad, “why would her get her that” he questioned. My response was why not? I won’t limit my daughter’s selection to be geared towards girly pinks and expected girly toys. Put a firetruck on a pick onesie with the words, my hero and the idea of a girl playing with fire truck, becoming a fire fighter as a woman becomes acceptable, or controversial?
ReplyDeleteYour example of the wording on clothing reminds me of some studies that have shown that we talk to boys and girls different, with many more comments about appearance to girls than boys, and also urging girls to be more careful. It's interesting to consider how the clothing reinforces this!
ReplyDelete