Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

#31

Post by Dewie »

rustynails wrote: post #27
Dewie wrote: post #24

It is interesting that some social conservatives (or maybe just non-liberals?) care about consciously enforcing gender roles through clothing. This would seem to imply that they are similar in their beliefs with feminists when it comes to the nature/nurture question: that gender is enforced through culture. But this is usually thought of as a very liberal idea (or whatever I should call it). Pink as an effeminate col…

I think you're missing something. I don't see anyone enforcing anything. What if people like differentiation? Your comments imply that it's bad. 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, nurtu…

> I don't see anyone enforcing anything.

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.

Re: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

#32

Post by mjn »

mc32 wrote: post #25
ChuckMcM wrote: post #9

One practical aspect of the same clothes until age 6 is that kids grow so fast you need to re-use clothes. In the 18th and 19th century when having clothes made was much more expensive, and the number of children a family had was high, the re-use would have been essential. Any parent today who has had two kids of one sex and then the third comes along of the other sex finds they have a bunch of boxes of things that t…

While boys and girls wore "dresses" till about age 6 or 7, till they were breached[1], they carried gender markers --at least in the upper classes. The clothes were not interchanged. The styles were different and people of the time would be able to identify the gender. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)

Two differences, fwiw:

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

Re: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

#33

Post by Tichy »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #20

It would be nice to return to the times of gender-neutral clothing, and perhaps keep it that way until the child expresses a preference. After all, genitals don't determine gender, they determine sex.

That gender discussion is so weird. It seems people who are concerned about being forced into a role because of their gender go to great lengths and mental acrobatics to define some kind of new genders. So they struggle and struggle to actually define new roles they can be confined to.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply not worry about gender at all and simply use your sex in any way you please?

Re: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

#34

Post by mjn »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #20

It would be nice to return to the times of gender-neutral clothing, and perhaps keep it that way until the child expresses a preference. After all, genitals don't determine gender, they determine sex.

Side point, but I'd be careful about assuming historical children's clothing implies more gender-neutrality. It aligned with a different conception of gender and childhood, but still a very particular idea of gender roles.

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.

Re: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

#36

Post by endtime »

Dewie wrote: post #24

It is interesting that some social conservatives (or maybe just non-liberals?) care about consciously enforcing gender roles through clothing. This would seem to imply that they are similar in their beliefs with feminists when it comes to the nature/nurture question: that gender is enforced through culture. But this is usually thought of as a very liberal idea (or whatever I should call it). Pink as an effeminate col…

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.

Re: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

#37

Post by Dewie »

endtime wrote: post #36
Dewie wrote: post #24

It is interesting that some social conservatives (or maybe just non-liberals?) care about consciously enforcing gender roles through clothing. This would seem to imply that they are similar in their beliefs with feminists when it comes to the nature/nurture question: that gender is enforced through culture. But this is usually thought of as a very liberal idea (or whatever I should call it). Pink as an effeminate col…

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.

> 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).

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?

Re: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

#38

Post by meepmorp »

Dewie wrote: post #37
endtime wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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). 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…

> So what is the non-arbitrary reason? The one mentioned in the article?

You seem smart enough to have figured out the implication, but I believe s/he meant that the inner portion of the labia and opening to the vagina are pink; the word pink is also used as a slag term for the female genitalia.

Re: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

#39

Post by meepmorp »

nostromo wrote: post #17
neeee wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think "they" is preferred over "it", and not rude at all.

Really? That sounds worse to me... "How old are they?" "When did you have them?" "Are they a boy or a girl?" "They are adorable." I would probably just drop the pronoun completely. "How old?" "When did you give birth?" "Boy or girl?" "So adorable!"

You're in dangerous territory if you ask boy or girl - people often assume their child's gender is as obvious to you as it is to them. I've gotten some unexpected hostility from strangers this way.

Re: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?

#40

Post by Dewie »

meepmorp wrote: post #38
Dewie wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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). 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…

> So what is the non-arbitrary reason? The one mentioned in the article? You seem smart enough to have figured out the implication, but I believe s/he meant that the inner portion of the labia and opening to the vagina are pink; the word pink is also used as a slag term for the female genitalia.

Well in that case: the penis glans is pink.
Post reply on HN