I found this vintage outfit in an antique store the other day and bought it, despite having no children. I thought it was a great example of how our “only girls wear pink and only boys wear blue” rule is arbitrary and wasn’t always as strictly enforced as it is today.
Of course, you could also use it in a discussion of how girls are allowed to appropriate “masculine” things (i.e., a girl can wear blue) in a way boys can’t usually do with things coded feminine (a boy wearing pink, for instance).
I suppose the pink bows on the ducks were supposed to make it appropriate for a girl?
UPDATE: Ok, according to several commenters, this is a boys’ outfit. The woman at the store was adamant that it was for a girl. I’m guessing it was the ruffles and the cute little duckies. That could be another topic for discussion–what clues were she and I looking at to decide what gender this outfit was manufactured for? Thanks for the correction, readers!
I am not convinced that most people are as carefree about the colors their kids are dressed in as some of the commenters are, though. Yes, both boys and girls might wear orange…but they’ll usually be different shades of orange, mixed with different other colors, with very different patterns. Go to a store selling kids clothes right now and stand in the middle between the girls’ and boys’ sections and look back and forth at the clothes (I did this recently). I don’t think there will be very many items that are not clearly gendered–where you think “I have no idea whether this was manufactured for a boy or a girl. The colors give me no clue.” And most parents would not take kindly to you giving their kids clothes for the “other” gender…Believe me, I’ve been dumb enough to think it wouldn’t matter, and it most certainly does, apparently. You might get away with giving a girl a t-shirt with a dinosaur or firetruck on it, but you give someone’s son a lavender t-shirt with a dragonfly on it? Well…go try it and let me know how it goes.
Comments 8
Dangger — August 19, 2008
This could well be a boy outfit. I think I have seen photos of my great grandparent wearing something like this, although the example could serve as well.
Svetla — August 20, 2008
Yes, it is a boy outfit. My son had almost the same (dolphins intead of ducks) 30 years ago, when he was 10 months old. :-)
esther — August 20, 2008
I remember reading somewhere that it used to be exactly the other way round. Pink is a pale red = blood, war, manly. And blue is the color of the virgin Mary.
But of course it's arbitrary, I don't think anyone out there thinks this color scheme is God-given. All the same, in this culture pink means girl and blue means boy.
I just don't know what you mean by "enforced". As far as I know and have experienced, you can dress a girl in any color you want, and a boy in any color except pink. And if they really want to wear pink when they are old enough to decide for themselves, that's ok too. But I'm in Europe, maybe it's different in th USA.
It's quite comparable to the long/short hair discussion, I think.
Dubi — August 20, 2008
As someone who does have kids (ok, *a* kid), I can tell you that the separation isn't as clear cut as you put it. Like Esther said, girls can wear any colour, and boys can wear anything but pink. My boy has orange, red, blue, purple, gray, white and a bunch of other colours clothes (I'm colour-blind, I can't tell half of them apart). Pink really is the only "problem". The whole "blue is for boys" is simply because they needed something opposite the pink, but girls are not excluded from using it. Go into any children's clothes store and see for yourself.
K — August 20, 2008
I've tried to buy baby clothes that aren't gender-specific for friends, and it is difficult but not impossible. However, it gets harder the older the child, perhaps because, as they get older, girls want to wear pink. Whether it's cultural expectation or what, I don't know. (I live in Scotland.)
My mother used to dress me in pink dresses and my smaller sister in a matching outfit in blue - so that we both got a chance at the pink, since my sister would grow into it. (She preferred us not to be totally matching). We both loved pink and insisted on having a pink bedroom. This was in the 80s.
As an adult I don't care for pink unless it's fuschia or darker, and have every intention, if I have daughters, of dressing them in non-pink clothes until they're old enough to complain...
My husband wears pink and lilac quite a lot. It looks good on him.
K — August 20, 2008
I've just remembered the fashion for Alice blue in the early 20th century - that was a blue that was associated with girls...
Elena — August 21, 2008
Apart from reds and pinks being OK for boys, until the late 1700s little boys would wear dresses or petticoats for as long as they could until they could dress as miniature adults. This is Velázquez's portrait of the prince Felipe Próspero in 1669, for example. This was mainly for ease of bodily functions.
This exposition about the history of children's clothing looks pretty interesting.
Jonathan — April 4, 2009
Until the 1940's, pink was though inappropriate for girls as it was too "passionate" and "robust" color for girls. Girls were instead dressed in blue. So if this outfit was from before the '40's, it would be, most likely, for a girl. As you bought this from an antique store, that is a possibility.