Pink is for girls...or is it?

My oldest daughter¹ just had her fourth child--a beautiful little 7lb. 2oz. girl, Jessica Lee. She joins her trio of elder sisters now making our son-in-law, Joe, the sole male in their domestic kingdom. He insists when the family gets a pet, another male will join him in holding the definitive female majority in check.

Though Kathy and I think it's magnificent to have four little cuddly girls to love on and make over,² I must admit I've had some fun with Joe by threatening to buy him a Hello Kitty accessories package for their Nissan Quest, a package including a pink license plate frame, pink steering wheel cover, pink rear-view mirror add-on, pink key-ring, pink sunshade, and bright pink floormats. I laugh. He never does.

My wife and I were married in 1973 with our first-born coming later that year. While we didn't know whether we were having a boy or girl, when our son came, we dressed him the way boys are to be dressed--in blue. And, death would I gladly choose before dressing him in "girly" pink. Please.

Our cultural shifts are many but one which produces as much confusion as any for us is our collective cultural perception of gender and gender identity. To say we're confused about gender may the most massive understatement imaginable.

So when did pink become prim and proper for girls and blue for boys? If you're like me, you might think pink for girls was indicative of Scripture's creation ordinances in Genesis 1 & 2 (just kidding).    

According to Smithsonian.com, "Every generation brings a new definition of masculinity and femininity that manifests itself in children’s dress." In the article, "When did girls start wearing pink?" is quoted University of Maryland historian, Jo B. Paoletti, responding to the question as to how we ended up with team uniforms of blue for boys and pink for girls. Smithsonian.com writer, Jeanne Maglaty reports:

“It’s really a story of what happened to neutral clothing,” says Paoletti, who has explored the meaning of children’s clothing for 30 years. For centuries, she says, children wore dainty white dresses up to age 6. “What was once a matter of practicality—you dress your baby in white dresses and diapers; white cotton can be bleached—became a matter of ‘Oh my God, if I dress my baby in the wrong thing, they’ll grow up perverted,’ ” Paoletti says.

Maglaty goes on to cite Paoletti's research which led Paoletti to conclude that America's cultural march toward gender-specific clothes was neither linear nor rapid. Instead pink and blue were but two colors among other pastels for babies which appeared in the mid-19th century. Of significance, however, neither pink nor blue was promoted as "gender signifiers until just before World War I—and even then, it took time for popular culture to sort things out."

Wow! And, I thought the colors were indicative of first century Christianity!

Maglaty further cites some interesting sources prior to World War II. For example, a 1927 article in TIME magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores.  In Boston's prestigious Filene’s department store, parents were informed that the appropriate dress color for boys was pink. Best & Co. (New York), Halle’s (Cleveland) and Marshall Field & Company (Chicago) all agreed: pink was for boys.

An even earlier article (1918) came from the staple trade magazine, Earnshaw's Infants' Department. With eye-popping clarity, it concluded: 

“The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”

Sweet heavens!  My cultural construct which has served me for almost 60 years just blew a head-gasket!

But wait!

There's more.

Not only was pink apparently for little boys at an earlier time in our American journey, but to pride's death in macho men everywhere, so were dresses for little boys. In fact, the times apparently dictated in the latter quarter of the 19th century that boys wore dresses until age 6 or 7, an age which also constituted the time of their first haircut.

Take a long hard look at the photo below and try convincing yourself it is the picture of a beautiful little girl. If you manage to do so, you've convinced yourself of an historical untruth. Unless the 32nd president of the United States was actually a female, the photo is of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a spunky little boy:

 

"Like other young boys of his era, Franklin Roosevelt wears a dress. This studio portrait was likely taken in New York in 1884" (//link)

So am I now going to rush out and buy my five little girls some boyish blue to spice up their life and challenge the arbitrary shifts of our fleeting social-norms? Not likely. And, I'm certainly not going to go out and buy my only grandson a Barbie outfit.

What I might do is stop threatening to buy Joe a Hello Kitty accessories package. He'll appreciate that, I'm sure. 

 

¹Kristy holds that honor by beating out her twin sister, Kimberly, by a mere 2 minutes!

²five if we include our son's daughter, and six to love on if we include our only grandson

Comments

[Lydia]

Yep, It is shocking to find out pink was considered masculine in earlier history. I have a large painting of my grandfather done in about 1909 sporting him with long lush curls, a frilly dress and button up boots! It is an excellent painting and he makes a very striking little girl.

I was so confused about this painting of my very masculine grandfather which I found in an old chest many years ago (was he hiding it?), I did a bit of research. And I can totally relate to why little boys were dressed up in dresses until about the age of 3 back then.

With no disposable diapers, plastic covers for cloth diapers or washing machines at their disposal, it made total sense to me! Pass them off as girls to cut down on the laundry? Or make dresses the masculine wear for little boys. (FYI: Same period paintings have little girls in pinafores)

The good news is we now know it did not hurt the boys gender identity one bit. :o) And guess what? His dress was pink!

[Lydia]

Oh, I almost forgot: Congrats on your growing grand brood! What a joy.

[Max]

I'm sure that God predestined blue for boys before the foundation of the world ... it just took us a while to figure it out ... probably in Romans or Ephesians somewhere if we were smart enough to decode it ;^)

Speaking of boys, we have our first grandson on the way! I've been spending a lot of time praying for Stephen while God is forming him in the womb ... to stand for Christ in his generation. Congratulations Peter on the new addition to your family!

[Mary]

Oh how wonderful! Congratulations Peter and Congrats Max on your soon to be born.

We had two boys before my baby girl. She wore a lot of hand me downs in PJs and Tees around the house - never for company or in public of course! I wonder now if I'd had girls and then a boy if I would have dressed the boy in girl hand me downs? Somehow I don't think so but then at the time it was just important to have clean clothes and not so much about what they looked like.

That FDR pic is great - even the shoes are girl by today's standards.

[Scott Shaver]

Three daughters myself. Brother-in-law has 2 daughters. Other brother in law has 1 daughter. My sister has 3 daughters.

Pink is my favorite color.

[cb scott]

Hey Pete,

We would have never believed back in our outlaw days that we could have such beautiful granddaughters, ya think? God has blessed us both and I am happy you are blessed so recently with this new granddaughter, Jessica Lee.

Congratulations and may our Lord Jesus bless that little girl and her family in a great big largeness of His grace, love, and joy.

[William Marshall]

Bro. Peter,
As a long-time friend of your son-in-law, I plead with you to go ahead and buy the 'Hello-Kitty' set (and please post some pictures when you do)!!

Congrats on the grandbaby!

wm