I must say, I was disturbed by this recent Salon column by Nathan Hegedus:
I Will Put My Little Boy in Pink Pants
In it, Hegedus discusses the significance and importance of putting “feminine” clothes on his young son and reflects on the meaning of his own reluctance to do so.
I can understand being challenged in the laundry department. I can understand wanting to save money on clothing and thus re-using “girlish” clothes from an older sister. But Hegedus’ motivation to put his son in pink is not a practical one at all. In his mind, the importance of putting pink pants on his son is both social and political:
The stereotypes run both ways—feminine may be perceived as weak and passive, but it is also seen as gentle and sensitive. And if men are going to make it in post-industrial society—and there is much fear that they will not—they need these interpersonal and nurturing skills, both at work and at home.
Could we raise gentle and sensitive boys without the feminine symbols, without pink? Probably. But what’s wrong with a little pink, with a flower here and a butterfly there? So, Ms. Steinem, I’m on board. I get it. I can’t just toughen up my girl. I also need to make my boy confident with his softer sides. I need to embrace a metaphorical pink.
Haven’t we already tried this gender experiment? The one where we pretend there is no innate difference between the sexes and we need to force little girls to play with trucks and little boys to play with dolls? And hasn’t it failed?
While of course there will be some cross-over between little boys’ and little girls’ interests and natural abilities, to pretend that the only differences between boys and girls are the ones that society imposes upon them is not only ridiculous and futile—it’s unfair to the kids themselves.
Any young man who wonders whether he needs to “get in touch with his feminine side” should try acting more feminine around women and see how that works for him. Here’s a hint: Chicks don’t dig it.
Any dad who wonders if his sons are naturally more active and aggressive creatures than their sisters should spend an afternoon watching them play. Here’s a hint: There won’t be many tea parties.
Instead of fretting over pink pants, more dads should take seriously the important role they play in their sons’ lives. They are the ones who will teach their sons to be men. They are the ones who will model masculinity and fatherhood for their children. That job might require working hard, talking honestly, and setting a manly example by loving their mom. But I can promise you this: it will not require pink pants.
Comments
Post a Comment
Clothing is making the man/child more than ever recently.
Has anyone seen the ‘gender statement’ being made (at least on the tabloid covers) with Angelina Jolie and her daughter, Shiloh? The little girl has been given very short hair and dresses in anything but pink. Her mother states, with some pride, her daughter wants to be more like her father, Brad Pitt, and ‘prefers’ dressing like a boy.
I am skeptical of both Ms. Jolie and Mr. Hegedus’ motives and rationale. As parents we all know we both buy and choose what our children will wear for a the first years of their lives. To say a toddler ‘prefers’ one type of clothing over another, as Ms. Jolie states, is stretching it - especially if you only provide one choice! Granted, this is coming from a mother whose 3 yr. old son asks for shirts that have anything with wheels on it - Thomas the engine preferred.
In the case of Shiloh, I wonder if her mother may actually be showing a disrespect for her daughter’s femininity (and perhaps her own) by the clothing purchased and worn. And as for Mr. Hegedus’ a kind son will not be made by his clothes, despite what the cliche may state, he is made by the actions he witnesses around him and by the values and virtues honored by his father.
I thought I was in some kind of time warp reading this one. As Danielle said, wasn’t this already done? Tried and failed? Why is the fact that boys and girls - or men and women - are different so offensive to some people? Different doesn’t mean unequal - it just means, well, different!
Amen, Danielle!
This past weekend, hubby took the family out to dinner at a local pizza parlor. While seated, hubby sees this a little boy, approximately 10 yrs. old wearing a pink shirt emblazoned with: “Tough enough to wear pink!”
Hubby, turns to his 4 sons and says: “Not on my watch! Just try it…that boy didn’t pick out that shirt and neither did his dad. His mom bought that. Shame on her!”
God bless real men. They don’t need a slogan or a color…just conviction!
“Son, this world is rough / And if a man’s gonna make it, he’s gotta be tough / And I knew I wouldn’t be there to help you along. So I give you that name and I said goodbye / I knew you’d have to get tough or die / And it’s the name that helped to make you strong.”
The ONLY qualifier I see in this regard is the use of pink as it supports breast cancer. I saw a young boy in his teens who was wearing a pink shirt which read - “In Honor of My Mother’s Courage”. I got tears in my eyes. Pink is a funny color nowadays in light of its link w/ breast cancer awareness, so I agree ‘not on my watch’ but that attitude might change in the breast cancer lion appears at our door.
This article got me thinking and I remembered a site that was pushing that we should not dress our girls in pink as it marginalizes them. Many of the comments agreed until they got to the point - mentioned above - about the link between pink and support of breast cancer. I couldn’t find the original site as I remember here’s one of the stories about pink and girls - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7817496.stm
Google boys or girls and pink and you’ll get boys in dresses and all sorts of strays from the expected norm. In the end, you’ll end up like the kids who walk past my house toward the high school. They all think they are dressing as individuals (even the ‘goth’ ones) but they are all the same.
For me and my kids - as long as they are modest - I’m flexible. Even my dh has a dress shirt w/ a faint pink line through it and when it he wears it, he looks great.
I’m continually bothered by this gender reassignment talk not only because it is bizarre in itself, but because it always betrays a misunderstanding of the traditional characteristics of men and women. It argues from an assumption that traditional-minded folks see women as gentle and soft. It then claims that women must be made more masculine, i.e. more tough, insensitive, and rash. I know many strong women, among them my wife. I think the Blessed Virgin was a strong woman, but she demonstrated a different kind of strength from Joseph’s. Men, likewise, can easily be gentle and nourishing in a perfectly masculine way. I can nourish my son by reading to him, playing with him, picking him up and tossing him in the air (much to my wife’s anxiety). None of these are peculiarly feminine things, nor are they the acts of men purposefully distant from their loved ones. St. Joseph was nurturing to Christ by teaching Him carpentry. Few women, even today, are skilled carpenters. Furthermore, why is it that when men need to be feminized, we all think of traits like gentleness, nurturing, kindness, and compassion, but when we think of masculinizing, we see references that paint a picture to a Neanderthal? The real solution isn’t to man boys more like girls and girls more like boys. The real solution is to make boys more like boys and girls more like girls, each to pursue every virtue in his or her specific way as boy or girl. They will pursue all the same virtues, but each in a different way, kind of like how boys become handsome and girls become pretty. They refer to different ways of being beautiful.
He should have just named him Sue.
Great blog! Micah took the words right out of my mouth. What’s wrong with girls being girls and boys being boys?
Meh. My husband and sons both wear pink Brooks Bros. shirts and they’re all pretty darned manly.
It’s not the color that’s gonna do anything one way or another—it’s the parents all politicizing their kids 24/7 who are gonna turn them all into a pack of hypersensitive, attention-seeking nutters.
Love your kids and do right by ‘em. They are not extensions of your egos, and they were not put on this earth for you to use to showcase your worldview.
Why not?
Pink was not a considered a feminine color until around the 1940s. Pink was a popular masculine choice because of its relation to red. Blue was considered a feminine color because it was thought to be dainty and delicate. (Even sacred. Look at paintings of the Virgin Mary, what color do you usually see her in?) The symbolism of pink and blue today has its roots in post WWII marketing done by the fashion industry. (Do you do everything they say?) Pink or rose are also liturgical colors and very special considering they are only worn two days of the year. All this to say wear what you like, and what looks good. And don’t assume everything is a “statement,” why shouldn’t a guy or a boy wear pink if they like pink?
I am concerned with helping people discover AUTHNENTIC masculinity and AUTHENTIC femininity. I feel blue and pink are cultural norms and have nothing to do with authentic maleness and femaleness as God created them. So if a boy wants to wear pink or have long hair and a girl wants to wear blue and have short hair, why not? As if authentic femininity could be summed up by flowers and frilly pink clothes and masculinity with making grunting noises and wearing blue. Just as it is a disservice to ignore or dissuade authentic differences, I feel it is also harmful to go to the opposite view and perpetuate gender stereotypes.
My husband decreed that despite our moves further and further south that I was not to buy him any pink, salmon, or otherwise “pink-y” shirts, pants, or ties. Pink and related shades are a-okay here in SC for frat boys and business men’s button-down shirts or polos, although the same shirt would have gotten you laughed out of school back in NJ. Then again, these not at all “froufy” men are also pulling off white linen and seersucker suits with panache, so maybe it’s a southern thing.
For little boys, it is popular and chic here to dress them, along with their sisters, in smock-style clothes. I had neither seen nor heard of this type of clothing before moving to SC and almost died laughing when I realized that it was considered upscale to dress little boys in poufy pastel dress-type clothes. They seem very old-fashioned, so again, maybe a cultural southern thing.
Why can’t we just get over this? My almost 3 year old son prefers bright colors, especially hot pink. He plays with toys (dolls, trucks, balls, puzzles, animals). He doesn’t think about what boys or girls should wear and I think it’s ridiculous to think a color will make a child a girl or boy.
GROW UP!
My son is 3. His favorite color is pink. His favorite animal is a cheetah. His favorite superhero is The Flash and he loves playing trucks. His Dad is a scientist who plays sports and is super active in his life. I think people take it too far both ways. It’s really just a color.
Say, you got a nice blog article.Thanks Again. Much obliged.
wow, awesome article post.Thanks Again. Really Great.
http://www.mensusa.com/mens_seersucker_suit.html
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.