On the precipice of welcoming my second daughter into the world, I found myself once again traversing the vast landscape of Pinterest boards, scrolling for inspiration on nurseries and names. While browsing, I was struck by an oversaturation of the “gender-neutral” aesthetic or what I would describe as a lack of anything “typically” feminine.
It has been six years since I had my first daughter and while, back then, the trend towards a “gender-neutral” style was emerging – with friends declaring their commitment to dressing and decorating in this manner – the commercialisation of this trend has since skyrocketed.
Enter “gender neutral baby” into Google and you’ll be met with an abundance of “neutral” baby clothing, “unisex” nurseries and toy listicles that have been carefully curated to eliminate anything that could be considered typically “girly”. This prompts me to question why blues and greens are acceptable gender-neutral colours but pink and purple are not.
I appreciate the evolving attitudes that have expanded our girls’ world to include sports, trucks, building and engineering. This has been an amazing step forward, but the emerging perspective – often among more progressive circles – suggests that girls embracing the “tomboy” image are seen as “cool”, while girls that lean towards the “girly” are diverging from feminist ideals. What began as a noble idea has somewhat circled back, inadvertently casting judgment on girls and women. And while girls’ futures may have been broadened to include interests and jobs that were once reserved for boys, have we also broadened our attitudes enough to include more feminine pursuits for boys? My observations tell me no.
During the early years of my first daughter’s life, I was a member of an online feminist parents’ group. I recall coming across a post that prompted me to ponder attitudes toward “girliness”. In this post, a mother expressed frustration about her daughter’s choice of purple sparkly roller-skates, expecting her daughter to have “better” taste than to select an ultra-feminine style. This made me reflect on the contrast between conservative perspectives on gendered clothing and progressive attitudes. Might they both be passing judgment on traditionally feminine interests, albeit in divergent ways?
When my daughter turned two, she wanted an exclusively pink wardrobe, insisting on wearing only dresses – particularly favouring tutus or anything with an extra frill or sparkle. While my partner and I hadn’t explicitly discussed raising our daughter in a gender-neutral way, we shopped in both sections of the clothing store. She had truck and dinosaur T-shirts as well as fairy and unicorn outfits. We made sure to purchase both trucks and dolls, hoping to let her explore her interests freely. However, right from the beginning, she leaned heavily towards anything typically girly, showing almost no interest in the more “masculine” toys such as trucks. Well-meaning friends, aware of my feminist values, made comments such as, “You must hate how much she loves pink.” I found this intriguing because, despite being a proud feminist, I never saw an issue with her choice of clothing. Why should we shame pink and frills? Isn’t that just another way of putting down girls and women?
In broader circles, the “gender-neutral” trend manifests a similar bias, but perhaps more subtly. Gender-neutral styles lean towards clothing traditionally associated with boys, eschewing pink hues, frills, dresses or skirts. A societal double standard emerges where girls donned in traditionally “boys” clothing are accepted fully while boys opting for a skirt are labelled as “weird”. This observation raises concerns that despite the push for gender neutrality, there persists an implicit devaluation of traditionally “girly” elements, suggesting they are considered “less than” – a perception of inferiority that feminists and allies have been fighting against for centuries.
And while these double standards affect how we view and respect girls and women, it also effects boys in significant ways. A viral TikTok video of a dad chastising a childcare worker for allowing his son to wear a princess dress highlights societal attitudes towards boys exploring their natural inclinations. Humiliating little boys for exploring traditionally feminine aesthetics and interests not only sows the seed of misogyny but also cultivates shame in those boys who may want to explore them.
A societal devaluing of femininity starts at a very early age and the attitude parents, and the world at large, have around the use of “girly” things plants itself into these little minds.
While the push for gender neutrality is commendable, I would like to see it extend its embrace to include pink and frills. By integrating elements of “girliness” into the concept of gender neutrality, we can cultivate a generation of children who don’t perceive pink as anti-feminist or inferior. Moreover, this broader acceptance may encourage the wider community to be more open to letting boys explore feminine styles, ensuring that all children have the opportunity to experience the joy of twirling in a sparkly skirt as a fundamental childhood rite of passage.
As I embark on raising another daughter, my priority continues to be ensuring she can explore her interests free from shame or judgment. Whether she reaches for the frilly dress or the truck, I am committed to nurturing and encouraging all aspects of who she wants to be.
The Link LonkJanuary 17, 2024 at 11:36AM
https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiiAFodHRwczovL3d3dy50aGVndWFyZGlhbi5jb20vY29tbWVudGlzZnJlZS8yMDI0L2phbi8xNy90aGUtZ2VuZGVyLW5ldXRyYWwtZmFzaGlvbi1tb3ZlbWVudC1pcy1mYWlsaW5nLWxpdHRsZS1ib3lzLXdoby13YW50LXRvLXdlYXItc2tpcnRz0gGIAWh0dHBzOi8vYW1wLnRoZWd1YXJkaWFuLmNvbS9jb21tZW50aXNmcmVlLzIwMjQvamFuLzE3L3RoZS1nZW5kZXItbmV1dHJhbC1mYXNoaW9uLW1vdmVtZW50LWlzLWZhaWxpbmctbGl0dGxlLWJveXMtd2hvLXdhbnQtdG8td2Vhci1za2lydHM?oc=5
The gender-neutral fashion movement is failing little boys who want to wear skirts - The Guardian
https://news.google.com/search?q=little&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en
No comments:
Post a Comment