My daughter was born on the same day as the princess in England. We chuckled at the coincidence and promised our daughter that she would never be a princess. Instead, she would be free to make her own choices and pursue her own passions, whatever they may be. And she will certainly be able to dress however she pleases. When I was a little girl, I used to wear shirts with bugs or dinosaurs on them. While I recognize that my influence may not be stronger than the influence of her peers, I secretly hope that she will not be one of those pink-clad, princess-obsessed little girls who is endlessly fascinated with sparkles.
Lucky for me and parents like me, the feminist movement has brought us this: Princess Awesome. It is a clothing company that had wild success getting funded through Kickstarter. The HuffPo article headline read: Moms Launch Stereotype-Bashing Clothing Line That Challenges What It Means To Be 'Girly'. Full disclaimer: this project was started by a former colleague and I wish her great success. I do, however, challenge that it is "stereotype bashing." I think the prints are cute (flowers and ninjas, adorable!), but they are still, alas, dresses. And it is still, alas, called "Princess Awesome."
Our society is fully ready to accept little girls wearing dresses with ninjas and math symbols. What we aren't ready for is little boys wearing dresses and flowers.
My husband and I noticed this trend when opted to wait until our child's birth to discover her sex. We thought it was medically irrelevant during the pregnancy, and my siblings had all done the same with their first child. When we received presents, we noticed a curious thing: folks were willing to give outfits that were clearly meant for boys, but nobody would commit to giving a more traditionally "girly" outfit.
Why are we culturally okay with little girls wearing footballs and trucks, but we would never see a little boy in a frilly dress?
I found an online discussion in an online forum on BabyCenter, where all walks of life come together to discuss everything, and I mean everything, about babies. A user poses this question:
"Can anyone come up with a good reason why dressing your boy child
(infant toddler or older) in pink, frilly, flowery cloths is not common
practice?" She goes on to say that, while she considers herself to be free of gender biases, especially for infants, she doesn't think she could bring herself to dress a little boy in girly clothes.
Someone responds: "Pink is fine on boys if the clothes have the boy style to them.
Flowers...not so much. It just doesn't jibe well for them. It's not
biased just can't see a boy with a flowered shirt. And frilly on a boy?
Nope can't do that either."
But this response doesn't really hold up. For one, our perception that flowers and pink are girly is entirely cultural. There is nothing masculine about blue and feminine about pink, and not all cultures even share this view (read more here). For another, it's not even really possible to tell whether babies are male or female once they have a diaper on.
So here's my challenge to anyone who considers him or herself a feminist: Instead of lauding ideas such as dressing up girls in math-print dresses as progressive and "sterotype-bashing", let's really challenge what we are willing to accept. Ask yourself: would you put a dress on a little boy? If you saw a little boy in a pink tutu, what would you think?
I'll end with a story. A little boy wanted a princess-themed birthday party when he turned five. His parents didn't see any reason why they shouldn't oblige his wishes, so they did it. By the time he was seven (when I met him), he was so embarrassed about the party that he was unwilling to talk about it. That's what needs to change.
No comments:
Post a Comment