(no subject)

[rivka]

Not a fresh or original rant, I know. But:

I went to the mall today because Alex needed pajamas, and we had a gift card for the Carter's outlet. They had racks and racks of toddler girls' pajamas: pajamas that said "Princess" across the chest. Pajamas that said "Mermaid." Pajamas that said "Hula girl." Pajamas that said "Sun kissed." The handful of pajamas that didn't outright label the wearer as a purely decorative object were covered with flowers, except for one pair with an extremely feminine cat. (And flowers on the pants.)

I spent a few minutes trying to find the least objectionable pair, and then mentally smacked my forehead and went across to the boys' aisle. There I found pajama sets with fish, jungle animals, brightly colored tree frogs, dogs, dinosaurs, rocket ships, sports equipment, sharks, and so on.

It's not that I object to dressing Alex in gendered clothes. I don't have strong feelings in any direction, when it comes to her future gender expression. She wears a lot of girly clothes, actually, because her fair complexion, blonde hair, and blue eyes look particularly good in shades of pink, pastel orange, and pastel yellow. (Dark colors often make her look pale and washed out.) I don't object to hearts and flowers and butterflies, per se.

But if we're going to divide up the world by gender, does it have to be so lopsided? Does every single thing other than "looking pretty" have to belong in the boys' category? Don't little girls get to have any topics to be interested in at all?

We left the store with the cat pajamas, because Alex liked them. But also stegosaurus pajamas, rocket ship pajamas, and, also at Alex's request, dogs playing baseball. I like all four pairs just fine.

But sheesh.

Comments

[rivka.livejournal.com]

And that was it in 1993 in Lancaster for bright clothes for three year old boys -- everything was either muddy or princessy... or actively tarty. (I find "sexy" clothes on under tens actively offensive.)

Oh good lord, yes. Alex does wear a lot of sleeveless tops and so forth, because when it's perfectly normal for summer temperatures to top 35 C one wants to dress one's child in as little as possible. But there are minimal-coverage clothes that look like a little girl is meant to be wearing them in hot weather, and then there are minimal-coverage clothes that are obviously meant to ape adult styles. Little girls are not glamorous, damn it.

But even clothes in little-girl styles so commonly carry explicit messages that the wearer is for looking at, not for doing things. It drives me mad.

Re: muddy colors, I forgot to mention - probably because I didn't consider buying them for even a second - the wide variety of boys' pajamas in camouflage. Because what's cuter to evoke than child soldiers?

[ailbhe]

It's not that unusual to see small boys with near-shaved heads, combat trousers, and camo jackets, playing in the park. Sometimes I think I'm the only person who is made queasy by this.