What's the deal with pink?
April 13, 2017 11:43 PM   Subscribe

I see a lot of people getting upset over pink, that pink is bad, that enlightened parents shouldn't dress their daughters in pink, etc. If pink weren't associated with feminity, it wouldn't be problematic, right? I guess pink isn't the problem, it's whatever is associated with feminity that is the problem. My feeling is that by wanting to forbid our girls to choose pink and princesse-y things we are playing by the patriarchal rules, once again, while thinking doing the good, feminist thing.

Am I missing something else? I tried to find discussions about this online and on Mefi but to no avail. I'm interested in your thoughts, and any articles and discussions that might help me expand my view on this subject :)
posted by Ifite to Society & Culture (44 answers total) 11 users marked this as a favorite
 
I think you've got this backwards. The enlightened thing to do, in my view, is to let children choose what they wear, but this is hard because the options are limited and children are indoctrinated from a very young age.
What's bad about pink is that girls are all but forced to wear it and that so, so many toys and other things meant for girls are now pink. It's the lack of choice that's bad. That's the thing many people get upset over.

Forbidding girls to choose pink is just as bad as forbidding them to choose blue. The good, feminist thing is to allow children of all genders to make their own choices.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:50 PM on April 13, 2017 [63 favorites]


I have, in fact, never heard a feminist say that people should forbid their daughters to choose pink and princesse-y things, and I'm wondering where you got that from. It's quite possible that this is an opinion that is out there and I missed it. But I've never noticed it.
posted by Too-Ticky at 11:53 PM on April 13, 2017 [31 favorites]


You're right, it is nothing about pink itself. In the early 20th C there was some promotion of pink for boys and blue for girls -- they thought light blue was more feminine looking. It got reversed sometime around WW2. So it is completely arbitrary as a color choice.
I think this you are making an interesting point:
it's whatever is associated with feminity that is the problem. My feeling is that by wanting to forbid our girls to choose pink and princesse-y things we are playing by the patriarchal rules, once again, while thinking doing the good, feminist thing..
Unlike Too-Ticky I do see many feminist families avoiding or trying to avoid all pink and princessy things and guiding their girls away from that as a choice. But in terms of your point above: these families aren't trying to devalue some kind of feminine essence by forbidding pink. Rather, they're trying to steer their girls away from the kinds of messages that seem coded into being feminine by the kinds of products that insist on binary toys and the values that girls see performed by "princesses" in various forms. These messages still implicitly tell girls it's important to be pretty for other people, passive, delicate, in need of rescue, etc. The families who avoid pink do not want their kids to think this is what it means to be a girl.
And all the pink STUFF -- so, so much pink stuff in the aisles of Target! -- unavoidably communicates the binary to the little girls: this is a pink tiara and over there is a camouflage helmet and the two are mutually exclusive.
posted by flourpot at 12:01 AM on April 14, 2017 [24 favorites]


It's useless to keep a young daughter away from pink. There will be so many influences in their early years from school, family, TV, movies, etc. that all you can do is let them choose for themselves. However, there's a lot of movement against "strictly pink" lately; I think culture trends less towards girls = pink. There's a commercial I keep seeing on YouTube where the dad says something like, "she wants to play princess every day day, but once a week I let her play sheriff so I can wash her princess dress."

I say this as someone who has no children and zero experience with children. Please take this with a shaker full of salt.
posted by bendy at 12:10 AM on April 14, 2017 [1 favorite]


Yes, as Too-Ticky says, the problem is not pink in and of itself; it's the overwhelming pervasiveness of pink/purple in toys, clothes, etc. used to signify femininity.

I'm old enough to have grown up at a time when it seemed like the majority of toys weren't gendered, and even those that were gendered as "girl" toys weren't inevitably pink. The shift to "all pink, all the time" for girls is a recent phenomenon, and that's what the backlash is against -- not against femininity in the general sense, but against a very limited, color-coded concept of femininity that's being aggressively marketed to children.

Some further reading:
Toys Are More Divided by Gender Now Than They Were 50 Years Ago
Pink is for girls: What’s up with all the gendered toys?
Let Toys Be Toys: Why It Matters
posted by the return of the thin white sock at 12:14 AM on April 14, 2017 [43 favorites]


I watched the National Geographic war documentary that was full of real live bombs and bullets, the film makers in it every bit as deep as the soldiers. Afghanistan. Like two years ago. Stayed with them their entire tour. The docu is named "Restrepo" after one of the young men who got killed in battle there. Hell of a docu.

I wrote that to write this: one of the soldiers came from this totally pacifist household, hold-out hippies living in organic dirt yurts or whatever, and he was "No! Never!" allowed to have any toys that one hell of a lot of boys would want, damn sure what I wanted when I was a kid.

He joined the army as soon as he could, he was a machine gunner, looked to be one hell of a fighter.

My point being that children are people, and they're going to turn into whatever people it is that they turn into, whether they wear pink or camo.

I think let your child have her childhood. If she wants pink, hey, get her pink.
Also, get her some cd's by Pink, if anyone even uses cd's anymore.
posted by dancestoblue at 12:34 AM on April 14, 2017 [6 favorites]


Yeah, it is that to access non-pink and non-princess stuff for girls is hard. Even non-pink stuff will be pinkified (Princess Celestia is white in the cartoons but was made pink in the products for instance). Similarly finding boy's stuff that is non-violent or insulting can be hard.

In other words, finding gender neutral stuff is hard and finding gendered stuff that is not HYPERgendered is also hard. My kid is 200% anti-pants. Leggings are fine. Up until recently this meant foofy skirts and glittery leggings (or plain solids). It has shifted somewhat recently but is still dominated by hyperfeminine symbols.

Like, I have a kid who wil coordinate a whole peachy pink outfit one day, and the next feature a grey marle shirt wih vampire teeth, but that shirt is a men's one I modded for her because kiddo vampire stuff doesn't exist, or is grossly provocative/violent (the shows are fine mostly, the clothes and merch often awful). She has a wardrobe full of future gear like leather jackets and spiked shirts because she is so stymied by the clothing made for her age.
posted by geek anachronism at 12:34 AM on April 14, 2017 [7 favorites]


Its pretty funny (and more than a bit iffy) ..like just cruise down to the toy section of any department store, you'll immediately see which side is for boys stuff and which one is for girls, and a lot of peeps find this aggravating for a reason. Kids are treated primarily as consumers, and that their preferences get kind of shoved into really narrow categories (like princesses, ponies, rainbows, fluffy things with large eyes vs. robots, monsters, trucks and dinosaurs – which are all the things i was interested in as a kid, and still kept getting cabbage patch dolls from my aunts) based on their junk, not their brains.

we had a blogger write about it here, (some dept. stores website, the kids toys were all categorized by gender stereotypes) and the backlash was crazy. people were telling her to kill herself and stuff – despite her raising some really interesting ideas. my takeaway was that this is an issue that really shoots peeps' blood pressure through the roof..
posted by speakeasy at 12:44 AM on April 14, 2017 [2 favorites]


There's a great advice column in Jezebel about a mother's refusal to let her daughter dress like a princess. It's worth reading, because it delves into how you should talk to your daughter about clothes and self-worth. And that yes, you should allow your daughter to be a princess if she wants to.
posted by O9scar at 12:47 AM on April 14, 2017 [5 favorites]


As for pink, I've found myself treading the line between "no pink" and not vilifying coded femininity because that's a different kind of f'ed up. If everything "for girls" is pink, what are girls to think when something is not pink? The thing is, pink and purple (right now) is for girls and boys get all the rest of the colors. The marketers, though, aren't really targeting kids. I mean, they are because once the kids get into that gender binary stuff it's a gold mine. That little girl who declares, "I will only wear pink!" is the winner takes all of her class. Because it's a rain of pink for she who claims it. But, all that marketing is really for lazy parents and grandparents and other gift-givers. They have the wallet, they decide what to do with it. And it's hard to buy for kids so you walk down the aisle and if you have a boy, you buy the very dark-colored war and fighting toys. If you have a girl, you buy the bright, shiny caregiving and self-grooming toys. Yeah, there's some kind of messages there, I don't know why as a parent you might try to stay away from them. (Sarcasm.)
posted by amanda at 12:52 AM on April 14, 2017 [3 favorites]


Another issue is that pink stuff is often lower quality than regular stuff. If your daughter gets interested in building stuff out of wood, for example, and you buy her a pink hammer that's "specially made, just for girls!" you'll only have one option. And--based on my experience---that the pink hammer's hammerhead won't be heavy enough and the balance of the whole tool will be off. Whereas if you just go to the hardware store and buy her a regular hammer, then you'll have lots of options and can find her a hammer that actually works well and feels good in her hand.
posted by colfax at 1:09 AM on April 14, 2017 [39 favorites]


I was just coming in to say what colfax said. Pink as a color is harmless. Allowing a habit to form of getting a little girl the pink whatever it is as a default, because that's the one for girls, is going to lead you astray, because separate is rarely equal. Sometimes the pink version is going to be objectively crappy, sometimes it's going to be not exactly crappy, but meaningfully different beyond the color in a way you wouldn't have chosen (Lego sets that are not only color-coded by gender, but topically differentiated as well; if you only want to get a girl the pink sets, there are going to be subject matters she can't access), and sometimes it's going to be unavailable.

But yeah, to the extent that you see actual feminists saying that pink is bad because it's associated with femininity and femininity is bad, that would be a misogynist position for them to take. As a feminist myself, I don't think I'm that kind of misogynist, and I don't see other feminists behaving that way, but I'm sure there are some out there. I would hope that if you hear someone complaining about the pinkification of everything for girls, though, that you try to figure out if they've got a reason before assuming they're just misogynists.
posted by LizardBreath at 1:46 AM on April 14, 2017 [4 favorites]


It's not that femininity is bad, it's that it's presented to children as the only option for girls (and not an option at all for boys). I think to some extent it's human nature to want to put people in boxes, but it's our job to prevent that as much as possible. I don't want any child to get the message that the thing they like is not for them.

Princesses, though. The urge to be a fairytale princess grates with me, whether she's dressed in pink or not. I don't know how the concept of femininity got conflated with helplessness. Surely one can be feminine and still be the protagonist of one's own life.
posted by superfish at 1:59 AM on April 14, 2017 [14 favorites]


1) Options. You'll notice that many things code for "girl" are pink. Just... pink. Maybe purple. Maybe a light blue. But things coded for "boy" while it seems like they're all blue, when you walk the aisles you'll see almost every other color too. Even purple can be coded for "boy."

I remember often getting boy's bikes as a kid because ALL the girls bikes were pink.

2)Quality and Content. Many toys that make a "girls" version take out all the cool stuff. I remember my lego sets were all for building houses. I wanted to build a spaceship too! But they were coded for "boy" so people didn't give them to me (not that my parents would have cared. I did many "boy" coded things as a young girl. But as a child you often don't have agency in your own toys.)

And yes, our purple toolbox has a lighter weight hammer and font than the same brand for "men." Though my husband and I agreed the purple one looked more unique and a lighter hammer would be good for me because I am small.

3) Message. Many "girl" pink coded things are all about makeup, boy crazy, princess. NOT hero, firefighter, police officer, dinosaur. I don't think I ever had a Star Wars girl's shirt as a kid AND if I would have found one - it probably would have been pink and lame - not badass. Even now the women's Star Wars stuff is watered-down and turned "cute."

Surely you've seen the problems with messaging on girls shirt such as "Best subjects: -Shopping -Music -Dancing [x]Math (Well nobody's perfect!)" It's not just pink but it's all just tied together into "this is for girls - this is for boys."

3) Price differences. Look into the "pink tax." Many things are actually, literally priced more in the pink color.

So it's definitely not the color, and I freaking LOVE pink and girly shit, but I ALSO want to have choices and I think boys (and anyone of any gender) should have choices.

The point of feminism is equality - for everyone. So that girls are not forced into "pink" as the only option. They can wear the awesome cop outfit too without having to go to the boys section. We want messaging for girls that shows they are strong, and putting them into a "pink, only pink" box doesn't allow for that.
posted by Crystalinne at 2:05 AM on April 14, 2017 [18 favorites]


I adored the color pink as a young girl--the pink toy aisle filled me with real joy, so I'm probably biased.

I do think some of the concerns adults have over pink and the like are legitimate, but some are overblown. The question asked in that Jezebel article is a good example of some people going too far and projecting their views onto a kid too young to understand. Forbidding your daughter from wearing pink, princess or Barbie or Disney-branded clothing, even socializing with other girls who do, is not very feminist to me. It seems some people assume that if you engage in those things as a kid, you won't or can't be a feminist as an adult, which I think is untrue.

There are, to me, much more harmful messages we send to young girls (and boys): asking them to smile, pulling their hands away when they reach for certain toys, the whole "math is hard!" branding for girls that got Mattel into trouble once (and was parodied on the Simpsons. As feminist and enlightened as Lisa Simpson is, she's still 8, and still wants to play with her pink Mailbu Stacy dolls.)

Those messages are more harmful in my view because they're telling children how the "real world" is supposed to work. The pink and princess thing, to me, is just part of fantasy that all people engage in.

I don't believe you should stop a child from wearing pink or princess things but you shouldn't force them to, especially if they make it clear that they don't like it.
posted by girlmightlive at 4:20 AM on April 14, 2017 [3 favorites]


I have a pink-wearing son (he tie-dyes his shirts) and boy, does he get gender-policed. But that is another angle of approach.
posted by warriorqueen at 4:54 AM on April 14, 2017 [7 favorites]


Mom of boys, no girls, so I had the opposite thing. With my oldest son, born during the Vietnam war, I forbid all weapons, war toys. Eventually he made his own. He always liked knives and swords and as a teen got into archery and martial arts. But he never hunted and would never hurt anything. With my younger boys, they got whatever toys they wanted. My granddaughter likes princess things, but is also involved in several sports.

I think forbidding kids to have gendered toys or clothes if they want them only turns them further in that direction by making them forbidden fruit. Like someone said earlier, I too know of a son raised by pacifist parents, New Age mom, who joined the army as soon as he could.
His father, a draft resister, was furious, and this caused a rift between them.

Kids should be allowed to be who they are, whether they are a girl who wants trucks, or princess stuff, or a boy who wants dolls or toy weapons. Forciing a genderless identity on kids is just as bad as forcing stereotypical pink or blue gender.
posted by mermayd at 5:27 AM on April 14, 2017 [2 favorites]


Quality and Content. Many toys that make a "girls" version take out all the cool stuff. I remember my lego sets were all for building houses. I wanted to build a spaceship too! But they were coded for "boy" so people didn't give them to me (not that my parents would have cared. I did many "boy" coded things as a young girl. But as a child you often don't have agency in your own toys.)

On the other hand, when I was a girl in the 70s, my tricycle was red, Lego were just Lego, and there were no pink wiffleball bats. Even with my "girly" toys: my EZBake oven was oven-colored, my plastic plates were white, and my little kitchen set was orange and avocado green (yeah.) And Barbie was pink, but not AS pink.

I think the pushback is coming from people my age who had regular, non-pink toys and are now having to navigate our own girls being pushed toward more gendered-looking versions of the same toys. We are supposed to have come so far, so the backward slide is jarring.
posted by kimberussell at 5:44 AM on April 14, 2017 [36 favorites]


Next time you are at a supermarket go to the toy section, now find the tots aimed at girls that aren't pink and don't have glitter on them. Even Lego comes in pink, on the "girls" lego. Now try and find a boys toy that isn't blue, a vehicle or a weapon on some kind. Hell a young boy had to write to ready bake ovens to get them to make a not pink version of an oven. The anger over pink is the lack of choice. The angry over pink is what it represents, the lack of choice, for both boys and girls. The fact they are told their preferences by marketers and big business instead of being allowed to choose for themselves. So parents are avoiding the most obvious representations of that lack of choice for everyone male and female) that is the problem, it is pushing back against not only society's expectations for children but more scarily against letting marketing people tell your child what they are supposed to like, it is about empowering your child to decide for themselves.
posted by wwax at 6:04 AM on April 14, 2017 [7 favorites]


This is just a symptom of the real problem, which is that we associate 'feminine' with things that generally result in being passive, non-agentic, and powerless.
posted by actionpotential at 6:18 AM on April 14, 2017 [6 favorites]


Just anecdotally as someone who has come to hate wearing or owning any items that are pink (pussyhats excepted), it's not the color. It's what it has come to represent in our culture and how that can impact how women are regarded. For example, the last time I wore a pink dress to work my coworkers were very noticeably more condescending than usual. I think pink can be very pretty...on things that are completely separate from me.
posted by jazzbaby at 6:44 AM on April 14, 2017 [3 favorites]


Peggy Orenstein's Cinderella Ate My Daughter (NYT review) might help you unpack some of these questions.
posted by MonkeyToes at 6:46 AM on April 14, 2017


It's also about 'othering' - defining the male as being the normal, default state of being, capable of variation and complexity, and defining the female as a small, different, limited, other class that is different from the norm (rather than being 50% of the population and thus equally normal).

If boys 'get' blue, red, green, brown, orange, grey, black, and girls only 'get' pink, that means that most of the world 'belongs' to boys. Girls can only occupy this one colour, this single, narrow strand of pigment.

Applying that model of thinking to something as primal as colour, something that's learned at a very young age and is a fundamental part of how we perceive the world - it has the potential for a huge impact on the way we perceive the rest of the world, and of our experience and place in it.
posted by penguin pie at 6:49 AM on April 14, 2017 [37 favorites]


On the other hand, when I was a girl in the 70s, my tricycle was red, Lego were just Lego, and there were no pink wiffleball bats. Even with my "girly" toys: my EZBake oven was oven-colored, my plastic plates were white, and my little kitchen set was orange and avocado green (yeah.) And Barbie was pink, but not AS pink.

Yes yes yes!

Take a look at The Brady Bunch, probably the most "ideal" family at the time. A Google search shows that the girls did wear pink, but almost exclusively as part of a rainbow of wardrobe colors like this. Almost every other photo is a sea of non-pink, and when one of the girls is wearing pink it's clear that it's just another color. The exception are the bedrooms: the boys is mostly blue and the girls is mostly pink. Another thing to note: the girls are usually wearing pants, unless it's a special occasion.

Looking through old photos, I'm not sure you'd find me wearing pink in any of them, and I'm almost certainly wearing pants. This is true for all my friends, too.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:50 AM on April 14, 2017 [9 favorites]


Anecdata: both my nieces had pink, Barbies, and Disney princesses heavily pushed on them by my sister's husband's ghastly family; both somehow have ended up becoming major nerds. The younger, whose favorite color was pink as a small child, is a tomboy who is completely into anime and graphic art and has a coterie of male friends. I'm tumblr friends with them (something their stalkerish, intrusive paternal family doesn't know about) and it's pretty clear that they have their heads on even straighter than I did at that age wrt gender, feminism, and LGBT issues.
posted by tully_monster at 7:18 AM on April 14, 2017 [1 favorite]


It's performative and enfornced feminitity.

Often, "make it pink" is the extent of tailoring a product for women. Jessica Ivins gives a talk on this: http://cognition.happycog.com/article/designers-are-from-mars . Those ultra-pink women's products cost more, too: https://www.google.com/search?q=women%27s+tax+comparison&gbv=1&sei=98vwWO2cCceZmQHX-4GoDA However, when something does need a version for women or girls for physical reasons (I'm thinking bike frames here), the small pink version isn't a fit for tall women, and is a fit for smaller men. It would be better to offer bike frames at least as designed for a specific body size, and maybe in three colors.

Boys aren't allowed to like pink (and its cousin, purple), but girls are expected to and often forced into it There's a great cartoon where a little girl's choices in the toy store are fucsia, salmon, rose, etc., instead of pink being one of other options. Pink/purple = girl becomes an effective gender gatekeeper. My good friend is known for always wearing purple; when his son was born, the baby wore a lot of "girl" clothes because everyone wanted to give the baby purple clothes. Gender-neutral baby clothes rarely exist past the 12 months size, and even then are still hard to find. There will be a boy set (blue, red, primary colors, dogs, sports), a girl set (pink, purple, pastels, flowers, cats, lady bugs), and a gender neutral set (yellow and green, ducks, frogs).

Also, breast cancer pink is the least attractive of all the pinks out there.
posted by JawnBigboote at 7:19 AM on April 14, 2017 [7 favorites]


Yes, pink is often dismissed as frivolous and contemptible, because it's a 'girl' color, and everything associated with femininity is devalued and seen as less serious and less sophisticated. And those arguing it is not a 'thing' for progressive parents to treat pink/princess-y things as contemptible are being disingenuous, because it is absolutely a thing. And the issue goes far beyond certain colors being assigned to certain genders, lack of choice, lower-quality merchandise, etc.

Until reading the responses in this thread, I thought that it was becoming more common to see how anti-pink/princess was all about kneejerk dismissiveness towards all things coded as feminine. In the same way a job becomes devalued (abstractly and concretely) once women are primarily the people doing it, same with the color pink being seen as less serious, less complex, less sophisticated, less discerning and thereby being rejected by those wanting their children to be seen as complex, serious, sophisticated, discerning precocious beings. It is absolutely a thing.
posted by thegreatfleecircus at 7:24 AM on April 14, 2017 [4 favorites]


You're hitting the age-old dilemma: should kids' stuff be less gendered, or do we want kids of all genders to think that "girly" stuff can be just as good as everything else? It's easy in the abstract to say "both," but I think in the real world we all know that if you buy your kid a set of red and yellow blocks, toy execs will say to themselves "see? The 'boy' sets are selling better than the 'girl' ones. Therefore girls don't like blocks" and if you buy your kid a set of pink and turquoise blocks, toy execs will say "see? The 'girl' sets are selling better than we expected. Therefore girls still love pink." It's infuriating but the patriarchy is to blame, not a color and certainly not you or your kid.

Personally I think a good start is just to lay off appearances altogether when dealing with kids. Girls already receive so many implicit and explicit messages about how they look. So like...if a kid wants to put on an Elsa dress, I don't think there's much good to come of EITHER "you look so pretty!" or "don't you want to wear something else?" I DO think there's a potential upside to "yes! Let's have an adventure to the top of North Mountain and pretend to have cool powers and sing a song all about accepting ourselves how we are."

Whatever color block set they pick, focus on what can be built out of it. And so on.

While I agree with others that you let the kid take the lead, I also think it's a big help to have a wide range of things available, and also to not fool yourself about the fact that kids are getting a lot of messages about gender, including from the adults in their lives no matter how hard those adults try to be neutral about it. "My kid just naturally liked [whatever gendered thing]!" It's never nature alone. There are plenty of studies about how kids pick on up implicit clues about so many kinds of things. So I do think it's worthwhile to actively try to offset those messages when possible. NOT by forbidding or slagging on what you think the culture is encouraging, but rather by affirming what you see as the positive things about whatever the kid does choose.
posted by lampoil at 7:42 AM on April 14, 2017 [6 favorites]


Yep, there is a lot of thought about this, especially if you're a parent and a feminist. The general progression seems to be:

1. Pink!
2. No, NOT pink! Pinkification reinforces gender stereotypes!
3. Wait. If we act like pink is bad, does that mean we're saying femininity is bad? Let's rethink this. Maybe pink shouldn't be forbidden.
4. Okay, pink but also some spaceships and robots, and princesses who like chemistry and ninjutsu! Problem solved! High fives all around!
5. Wait. How do we do this for boys? Shit.

A lot of parents I know are at stage 3-5 but still have sort of kneejerk thoughts about 1-2. I have a young son and it's super weird to wrestle with some of those learned gender associations - I want him to enjoy wearing pink and purple and glitter if that's his jam, but I'll see a shirt with puff sleeves and a bow and get weird about putting him in it, when really bows shouldn't be any more verboten than glitter.

Also, "why the fuck are toddler girls' clothes cut smaller/shorter/tighter than toddler boys' clothes?" is a huge gripe in my moms' groups. Even the supposedly-gender-neutral clothing brands often have different cuts for boys and girls.
posted by Metroid Baby at 7:47 AM on April 14, 2017 [16 favorites]


The problem isn't pink, the problem is the near obsession with gender signalling and pushing gender norms on small humans.

So when I see a 1-day old in all pink with bows, or all blue with trucks, I see a parent who signals to the world and the child that their genitals are their most important part and that female genitals confer female tastes.

This is of course harmful nonsense, and why I am personally frustrated with forcing intensive gender performance on children, especially infants.

(and yes, it's fine to have some pink butterflies on a boy and blue dinosaurs on a girl)
posted by SaltySalticid at 7:50 AM on April 14, 2017 [10 favorites]


I am not a parent, but I was a K-1-2 teacher for many years and have worked with young children most of my life.

There is a view that says "let the kids choose what they want." However, it is important to critique that view, because "what kids want" is not something that emerges from deep within them as an intrinsic motivation. Kids receive social cues and gendered expectations from the very moment they are born - and parents can control only a part of that communicative process, and that control lessens with every month of life.

In early childhood, the peers are the most powerful influence. "What kids want" is largely defined by what they see their peers doing and having. Of course, a lot of that comes from relatively unreflective families buying into princess pink/camo/sports-themed gear, or whatever is being pushed in the stores as appropriate. The choices made there define a large part of your kid's environment and what he/she thinks s/he should be wearing.

So just saying "Well, she wants it!" is, for me, too uncomplicated an approach to the complex subject of self-representation, social and cultural influences, individual identity, and consumerism. I think it's an occasion for a set of good conversations - why do you want pink? Who wears pink in your world? Why do you think they like it? What do you like about it? What other colors do you like? Do you like to look just like your friends, or like yourself? And so on. As a feminist, this moment is a good one to start planting the seeds of questioning patriarchal values and their marketing by just reflecting on what individual choice is and means, and what forces might be influencing those choices, and whether those forces are intrinsic or extrinsic.

And also reinforcing that it's more than okay, it's great, to look like yourself and dress like yourself and enjoy everything even if your friends are not doing the same thing. That desire for conformity is high in early childhood, and it may be that you choose not to fight it, but at the same time you can also introduce the critical perspective and sense of independence that will very valuable later. It's also a caregivers' duty to not just cater to children's wants and desires, but to expand the world of what they see as possible, interesting, and welcome.
posted by Miko at 8:08 AM on April 14, 2017 [24 favorites]


> 3. Wait. If we act like pink is bad, does that mean we're saying femininity is bad?

Only if pink is identified in some essential way with femininity. Which we know it isn't, because it's a recent phenomenon (pink used to be the "boy" colour). It's not even a chicken/egg thing. Girls don't spontaneously prefer pink to other colours. They're responding to an incredibly strong, unidirectional push (stereotyping) that is increasingly binary, rigid, compelling, and punitive for non-conformity.

So the question for a feminist parent, I guess, would be, if my kid "loves" pink (i.e. being developmentally vulnerable, can't on her own resist the mass of pressures from all directions - marketing, TV, peers), do I let her indoctrinate herself into this scheme because she "enjoys" it? Would banning the stuff make things harder for her in other ways (not fitting in, being sad about not getting this thing she wants)?

I'm not a parent, so can't say how strong I'd be in the face of a munchkin face in tears. I also had more than a few Barbies myself. (However, although I think I'm more or less ok, and I did genuinely enjoy making and dreaming up clothes for those dolls, I do think they were minimally harmful. In that for a brief and very early period, I just assumed that as an adult, like once I turned 18 or something, I'd grow huge bazongas and turn blonde and blue-eyed. And you know, probably wanted that to happen, because it seemed like the best way to be female, in (admittedly mild but painful) opposition to what I and the girls and women around me looked like. Just one drop in an ocean, but a not insignificant one. And those pressures are worse today, much worse.)

re the dresses thing, personally, i also much preferred them to pants, because pants felt more constraining and irritating to the skin. perhaps that's an issue for some contemporary mini-Mefites as well.
posted by cotton dress sock at 8:12 AM on April 14, 2017 [2 favorites]


A few quick notes...

- Trends in parenting are super judgey these days. Its perfectly fine etiquette to directly shame parents out loud for things like not knowing car seats have manufacturer expiration dates or feeding their child snacks that aren't gluten-free.

- Every time I have to buy a gift for a little girl (I have a son) I make a crack to a nearby parent how the choices (in the girl gendered aisle we are usually standing in) make me "feel bad as a human being," and it always gets a laugh and a knowing shake of the head from the other parent, because those girls gendered toys are the fucking worst.

- Sometimes the parent judginess is a force for improvement. Sometimes it's just judginess over a fad that will change in a few months or years.
posted by jbenben at 8:45 AM on April 14, 2017 [1 favorite]


I guess my comment about men having the economic clout to turn their childhood interest in guns and fighting into actual war was a derail and got deleted.

I do think that there are some things that as a species and as children, we are inclined to. I think the youngest girls are often better able to focus, play socially, and can grasp the fundamentals of empathy sooner. I think the youngest boys are more apt to physically test their environment and gravitate toward social play that is more body and sensory intensive. But these things level out and early. And, of course, there are no single set of traits that is owned exclusively by any gender. But socially, we absolutely do treat boys and girls differently and we market toward them aggressively to a perceived common band of traits that is ultimately divisive. Divisive is not what will take us into the future as better people. Allowing marketers to inflate common traits into our essential natures just lines their pockets.

When I go to buy toys for my daughter, it can feel like a political act. Walking down the boy aisle to find something that would appeal to her genuine interests while not also capitulating to the boy-gendered coded mess is frustrating in the least. The boy stuff is often very ugly. Black, grey, dark red, hard plastic, bulging muscles, faces angry. The active play toys that don't rely on themes of fighting are often not "fun" colors either. I don't end up buying her many toys at mass-market retailers. I get stuff online where you can find things in nature colors and fun colors. And when we talk Princesses we talk about an expansive universe - what can she do? What are her interests? Is she an adventurer? Does she have special powers? We treat Princesses as the role they play in society – superheroes for girls. I find it ironic and not at all surprising that Princess is both a million dollar business and also a sneer when used at a grown woman. We do NOT allow the sneer in our house.
posted by amanda at 8:51 AM on April 14, 2017 [3 favorites]


and everything associated with femininity is devalued and seen as less serious and less sophisticated.

I think this is a natural consequence of women being seen by much of society still as the helpers and the caregivers instead of the leaders and the thinkers. Men who are misogynist but say they like women often mean they like women who are subservient.

And you can say all you want about caregiving and other feminine-coded activities being undervalued, but they are not associated with power, agency, competency, and other things that describe societal dominance.

What I often hear is 'we must stop devaluing these feminine-coded activities!' I do not hear enough of 'we must stop coding certain activities as masculine and certain activities as feminine!', and I do not hear them questioning why they think these things are feminine. Because I am outright pissed that none of the people who say the former say anything about declaring being a nurse or caregiver or similar as masculine, or declaring being a doctor or statesperson or banker as feminine.

Why isn't power - you know, the kind we ascribe to big bankers and politicians and such - associated with femininity in the minds of so many?

'Cause I'm a woman. And I want that kind of power.
posted by actionpotential at 9:03 AM on April 14, 2017 [7 favorites]


I've mentioned this before, but I'm fascinated by the TV shopping channels because they offer a glimpse into an America that is very foreign to me as a Jew who has lived in a secular, blue bubble for almost all my life.

One of my favorite things to see is a presenter twist themselves into a knot trying to sell things that defy gender/color norms, so when they're down to, say, only the purple laptops, the pitch is that purple is okay for men when it ties into school or team colors.
posted by Room 641-A at 9:37 AM on April 14, 2017 [2 favorites]


We have to devalue the work and contributions of this class because otherwise they would not do it for free. It is elevated as a high achievement for this class (women) to keep a home, nurture their children and family but MUST be devalued enough that the work is accomplished for free. We can't have a society that won't do those things because it would collapse but also we must have it for free.

The pinnacle, IMO, of the gender divide in toys is war versus care. How much do we spend on war, how much do we spend on care? This is where "the personal is political" can come to the fore. In aggregate how we spend our money and apportion our power is very meaningful and real. And we should question that down to our own personal decisions. But also, at the end of the day, I and all of us are just singular, swimming in the tide and sometimes you just end up buying the glitter toy and hope that you are setting your values in other, stronger ways.
posted by amanda at 9:45 AM on April 14, 2017 [1 favorite]


Although not specifically about clothes, the Let Toys be Toys project covers a lot of this well without getting into pink or blue = bad.
posted by TravellingCari at 10:22 AM on April 14, 2017


Yes, pink is often dismissed as frivolous and contemptible, because it's a 'girl' color, and everything associated with femininity is devalued and seen as less serious and less sophisticated. And those arguing it is not a 'thing' for progressive parents to treat pink/princess-y things as contemptible are being disingenuous, because it is absolutely a thing.

No, it's not disingenuous. You're misunderstanding the target of the contempt, which is the coding of pink as a "girl" color. The contempt is not for pinkness/princessesness itself. It's for the fact that corporations are forcing the idea of pink as a "girl" color down our throats.

You wanna test that? Watch how conservative vs progressive parents feels when a boy picks out a princess costume for Halloween. If progressives really have contempt for anything that is pink and princessy, they'd be dismissive of it when boys like it too. But in those cases progressive parents are delighted! Their boy isn't buying into the gender essentialism that says "girls and boys are inherently different. Girls inherently like pink things and boys inherently don't." It's conservative parents who are shocked and appalled because they're the ones who see those things as inherently inferior.

It's similar to the claim that feminists devalue traditionally feminine work like home-making, child rearing and nursing. Oh yeah? See how feminists feel about stay-at-home dads and male nurses. If there were contempt for the work itself, it would extend to the men who do it. But feminists know it's valuable, difficult work that is undervalued when women do it.
posted by mrmurbles at 12:33 PM on April 14, 2017 [4 favorites]


I think it depends on you pair it with.
posted by BoscosMom at 1:03 PM on April 14, 2017


I have, in fact, never heard a feminist say that people should forbid their daughters to choose pink and princesse-y things, and I'm wondering where you got that from.

I've literally heard feminist friends say 'I'm a feminist, princess stuff is forbidden at my house.' Without being ironic. So, the sentiment does exist within (self-described) feminism.

Without having read all the comments here, I agree with your observation that in condemning girly toys, we sometimes express little more than our internalized misogyny, and it sometimes comes across to kids as 'Pink sucks because it's a girls' color.' Ouch.

Personally I try to identify, and really understand, what about 'pink girly princess stuff' my girls like. A big part of it is being a powerful 'bossy' strong leader type figure while at the same time remaining socially acceptable and loved and attractive. That's the big chasm we *all* have to bridge as women, and it's understandable little girls gravitate towards this fantasy.

At the same time, I stress that pink is just a color and all colors are for all people. Kids are really good at finding out the subtext behind the things we say, though. My daughter knows, vaguely, that 'mom doesn't like pink', because I say critical snarky stuff about the Disney princess industrial complex sometimes. I think it's a complex topic even for adults and it'll take dozens of conversations over the years for her to get my point (which, of course, is not about making her like what I like, but letting her find out what it is she likes!).
posted by The Toad at 1:28 PM on April 14, 2017


(Approximate) quote from the latest Thomas the Tank Engine special, after a girl engine beats Thomas in the shunting competition: "What, you thought that just because I'm dressed up pretty I can't be a really useful engine?"
posted by clawsoon at 2:29 PM on April 14, 2017


I guess pink isn't the problem, it's whatever is associated with feminity that is the problem.

Yeah, as mentioned above, it's mostly that it's boring and restrictive. Some people really are incapable of buying a girl child anything other than a flouncy pink dress. In some cases, those people are the moms of boys who have been dying to buy a little girl a pink dress for years (true story!) and are just sort of psyched to do it--we never minded about that stuff with our daughter. Tutus, tiaras, princess gowns, the whole bit, until one day she was bored and then she never wore that stuff again.

There's nothing really wrong with it unless it is a matter of squishing a girl into a mold of girliness, but she can still be a scientist and wear a pink dress, or an astronaut, or she can just go 'fuck it I look cute in pink'. 'Pink', as you say, isn't the problem, it's a narrow view of women as people and some people slip into that belief a little too easily and parents sometimes want to keep an eye on how much of those belief systems creep in surreptitiously. Not because of others but to protect girls from getting a subtle message they're essentially a centerpiece on a table.

If everything else is a go and she's not surrounded by a harrowing array of sexist behaviors that need to be monitored, it is indeed not a big deal.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 2:39 PM on April 14, 2017


If progressives really have contempt for anything that is pink and princessy, they'd be dismissive of it when boys like it too. But in those cases progressive parents are delighted! Their boy isn't buying into the gender essentialism that says "girls and boys are inherently different. Girls inherently like pink things and boys inherently don't.

I'm not a parent, but if I had a son, I'd have mixed feelings about this. Not because I'd be afraid of his being effeminate, but because it kind of bothers me that a boy can put on clothes that to me have all that feminine baggage and take them off again and resume all the privilege that goes with being male. Men have always been able to do that with impunity throughout history...and I kind of resent it.
posted by tully_monster at 12:48 PM on April 15, 2017 [1 favorite]


« Older public participation rules for cities   |   Cat with vestibular? Brain cancer? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.