Dressing Your Child
Mar. 9th, 2006 10:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
radegund[This started out as a comment in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cangetmad's journal, but it spiralled out of control so I moved it here.]
The gendering of children's clothing is a big elephant-in-the-corner.
Gender-aware parents, in my experience (yes, that's limited, and yes, "gender-aware parents" is a fairly crude categorisation), like to aim for "gender-neutral" colours and styles. This is relatively unproblematic for boys, but because female=marked, it generally means that girls dressed thus are assumed to be male.0 You're responsible for labelling your girl, in other words, so that the unwary bystander is not confused.
And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Both the traditional "boy" stuff and the "gender neutral" stuff are most likely to be read as male; only the "girl" stuff is unerringly read as female. The iconography of "boy" stuff includes vehicles, sports, war, fierce animals (plus dinosaurs and monsters), traditionally masculine professions (firefighter, driver of large vehicle, construction worker), rough or transgressive behaviour (the pirate/burglar axis). The iconography of "gender-neutral" stuff overlaps with the "boy" stuff but also includes houses, trees, fruit, toys, school, zoo and farm animals, and not-so-fierce animals like mice and dogs (cats are for girls). The iconography of "girl" stuff (or so I've gathered - and do please tell me what I'm leaving out) includes flowers, baby or toy animals, princesses, fairies, ballerinas, sexual precociousness, emotional instability, untramelled consumerism, and the state of being the property of one's father.1 I also reckon that the clothes themselves are more of a thing in the "girl" space: they follow adult fashion and style, and they have frills and trimmings. Some "boy" clothes have interesting pockets or lift-up-and-see flaps, but that's not the same thing. The message is that "girl" clothes are "decorative" in a way that the rest are not. (Catering to the male gaze from day 1.)
Let's just pause for a second or two to think about the implications of these iconographic distinctions for how we train our children to see themselves in the world.
OK, got that? Good. We move on.
Non-gender-aware parents broadly follow the rules.
Gender-aware parents of boys range over the "boy" and "gender-neutral" spaces, with perhaps an occasional foray into "girl" if they're particularly motivated. I've yet to meet a boy whose parents dressed him in pink frills - and I'm confident that you understand, without my attempting to articulate it in my ongoing sleep-deprived state, why that's so. Most of them, I'm pretty sure, also avoid the "war" end of "boy" space.
Gender-aware parents of girls inevitably inhabit the "girl" space, unless they steadfastly refuse all gifts and hand-me-downs. They are also free to choose "gender-neutral" and "boy" clothes, but only if they're prepared to negotiate people's assumptions that their daughter is male. The only other option is to try to steer a course through "girl" space that avoids the "daddy's little princess" T-shirts and the pink bikinis. (Bikinis. For toddlers. I mean ... gah.) That (plus "gender-neutral") is what I think I'll aim for if I have a daughter. I'm uncomfortable with the outright rejection of things female, for reasons that should be obvious. But as far as I can tell, it's not always easy to find "girl" clothes that aren't emblazoned with the ick. (Oh, look. Dressing a girl is harder work than dressing a boy if you're at all into challenging stereotypes. Colour me gobsmacked.)
[ETA (an aside): Another little kink in the story is that from what I've seen, there tend to be more "girl" clothes for sale than "boy" clothes - or perhaps it's just that they're more prominently and imaginatively displayed. So we have, for girls, a restricted range of messages but a super-abundant supply. Way to channel future women into the roles that consumer society wants them to play.]
But isn't it COMPLETELY INSANE that dressing one's child in gender-appropriate clothes should be this problematic? Isn't it UTTERLY WACKED-OUT that a significant proportion of clothes designed for little girls carry messages that range from embarrassing to nauseating? Isn't it interesting that here as elsewhere, pretty much anyone who thinks about the issues wants to move out of the socially prescribed "female" space and into the "neutral/male" space as quickly as possible, and that females who venture into supposedly "neutral" territory are likely to be interacted with as though they were male?2
There's nothing inherently undesirable about the kittens, flowers, metallic textiles, and various shades of pink and purple that mark clothing out as "girl". Dressing your girl in orange denim dungarees and a white cotton T-shirt with dinosaurs on the sleeves is not inherently more responsible than dressing your boy in a fairisle twinset in heathery shades, stripy tights and a navy A-line knee-length needlecord skirt. And yet the latter is (all but) unthinkable, while the former is (more or less) unremarkable.
The Oyster's wardrobe, predictably, is pretty exclusively "boy" or "gender-neutral". The only "girl" clothes he has are some new socks from H&M: he's worn the plum and the turquoise but not the pale pink yet. (Non-clothing is different: he has several pink/purple/flowery/kitteny plates and cups, and two dolls (which he's just beginning to interact with now), and I'm vaguely on the lookout for a teaset.)
I can't really see myself greatly expanding his collection of "girl" clothes.3 And that, in a way, frustrates me. No, I am not going to moan about how my SON is being DISCRMINATED AGAINST OH EM GEE. But there's certainly a sense in which I do feel restricted by social expectations of his gender. I mean, I happen to like pink and purple, and I think some shades would look good on him. (He hasn't expressed much of a colour preference, FWIW, apart from definitely liking red.) Also,niallm and I are both besotted with him, and if we were into "angel" as a concept, then "daddy's little angel" wouldn't be an entirely inappropriate T-shirt message. Um. Apart from the possession thing, obviously. (Incidentally, aren't angels sexless? How did they become female in the children's clothes market?)
All of which suggests to me that we're probably socialising him in ways that may cause him difficulty later on when he encounters the hard-man stereotypes. Ho hum. You can't win. I am both disconcerted and (oddly) comforted by the thought that his immediate family provides only one component in his socialisation. And in the end, he'll have to navigate his own route through the gender jungle.
0ailbhe's daughter is in the habit of referring to herself as "boy" - as in, "boy get down now", presumably because so many other people do.
1 These last are (as you can appreciate) the ones that really cause me to incandesce.ailbhe recently recounted seeing two sets of vests in Primark: the boys' ones said things like "astronaut", "pirate", "fireman" and so on, while the girls' ones said things like "shopaholic" and "drama queen".
2cangetmad, you still on for starting that feminist baby-clothes business?
3 And isn't it also curious that his wardrobe appears to be ENTIRELY my domain, and notniallm's at all?
cangetmad's journal, but it spiralled out of control so I moved it here.]The gendering of children's clothing is a big elephant-in-the-corner.
Gender-aware parents, in my experience (yes, that's limited, and yes, "gender-aware parents" is a fairly crude categorisation), like to aim for "gender-neutral" colours and styles. This is relatively unproblematic for boys, but because female=marked, it generally means that girls dressed thus are assumed to be male.0 You're responsible for labelling your girl, in other words, so that the unwary bystander is not confused.
And that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Both the traditional "boy" stuff and the "gender neutral" stuff are most likely to be read as male; only the "girl" stuff is unerringly read as female. The iconography of "boy" stuff includes vehicles, sports, war, fierce animals (plus dinosaurs and monsters), traditionally masculine professions (firefighter, driver of large vehicle, construction worker), rough or transgressive behaviour (the pirate/burglar axis). The iconography of "gender-neutral" stuff overlaps with the "boy" stuff but also includes houses, trees, fruit, toys, school, zoo and farm animals, and not-so-fierce animals like mice and dogs (cats are for girls). The iconography of "girl" stuff (or so I've gathered - and do please tell me what I'm leaving out) includes flowers, baby or toy animals, princesses, fairies, ballerinas, sexual precociousness, emotional instability, untramelled consumerism, and the state of being the property of one's father.1 I also reckon that the clothes themselves are more of a thing in the "girl" space: they follow adult fashion and style, and they have frills and trimmings. Some "boy" clothes have interesting pockets or lift-up-and-see flaps, but that's not the same thing. The message is that "girl" clothes are "decorative" in a way that the rest are not. (Catering to the male gaze from day 1.)
Let's just pause for a second or two to think about the implications of these iconographic distinctions for how we train our children to see themselves in the world.
OK, got that? Good. We move on.
Non-gender-aware parents broadly follow the rules.
Gender-aware parents of boys range over the "boy" and "gender-neutral" spaces, with perhaps an occasional foray into "girl" if they're particularly motivated. I've yet to meet a boy whose parents dressed him in pink frills - and I'm confident that you understand, without my attempting to articulate it in my ongoing sleep-deprived state, why that's so. Most of them, I'm pretty sure, also avoid the "war" end of "boy" space.
Gender-aware parents of girls inevitably inhabit the "girl" space, unless they steadfastly refuse all gifts and hand-me-downs. They are also free to choose "gender-neutral" and "boy" clothes, but only if they're prepared to negotiate people's assumptions that their daughter is male. The only other option is to try to steer a course through "girl" space that avoids the "daddy's little princess" T-shirts and the pink bikinis. (Bikinis. For toddlers. I mean ... gah.) That (plus "gender-neutral") is what I think I'll aim for if I have a daughter. I'm uncomfortable with the outright rejection of things female, for reasons that should be obvious. But as far as I can tell, it's not always easy to find "girl" clothes that aren't emblazoned with the ick. (Oh, look. Dressing a girl is harder work than dressing a boy if you're at all into challenging stereotypes. Colour me gobsmacked.)
[ETA (an aside): Another little kink in the story is that from what I've seen, there tend to be more "girl" clothes for sale than "boy" clothes - or perhaps it's just that they're more prominently and imaginatively displayed. So we have, for girls, a restricted range of messages but a super-abundant supply. Way to channel future women into the roles that consumer society wants them to play.]
But isn't it COMPLETELY INSANE that dressing one's child in gender-appropriate clothes should be this problematic? Isn't it UTTERLY WACKED-OUT that a significant proportion of clothes designed for little girls carry messages that range from embarrassing to nauseating? Isn't it interesting that here as elsewhere, pretty much anyone who thinks about the issues wants to move out of the socially prescribed "female" space and into the "neutral/male" space as quickly as possible, and that females who venture into supposedly "neutral" territory are likely to be interacted with as though they were male?2
There's nothing inherently undesirable about the kittens, flowers, metallic textiles, and various shades of pink and purple that mark clothing out as "girl". Dressing your girl in orange denim dungarees and a white cotton T-shirt with dinosaurs on the sleeves is not inherently more responsible than dressing your boy in a fairisle twinset in heathery shades, stripy tights and a navy A-line knee-length needlecord skirt. And yet the latter is (all but) unthinkable, while the former is (more or less) unremarkable.
The Oyster's wardrobe, predictably, is pretty exclusively "boy" or "gender-neutral". The only "girl" clothes he has are some new socks from H&M: he's worn the plum and the turquoise but not the pale pink yet. (Non-clothing is different: he has several pink/purple/flowery/kitteny plates and cups, and two dolls (which he's just beginning to interact with now), and I'm vaguely on the lookout for a teaset.)
I can't really see myself greatly expanding his collection of "girl" clothes.3 And that, in a way, frustrates me. No, I am not going to moan about how my SON is being DISCRMINATED AGAINST OH EM GEE. But there's certainly a sense in which I do feel restricted by social expectations of his gender. I mean, I happen to like pink and purple, and I think some shades would look good on him. (He hasn't expressed much of a colour preference, FWIW, apart from definitely liking red.) Also,
niallm and I are both besotted with him, and if we were into "angel" as a concept, then "daddy's little angel" wouldn't be an entirely inappropriate T-shirt message. Um. Apart from the possession thing, obviously. (Incidentally, aren't angels sexless? How did they become female in the children's clothes market?)All of which suggests to me that we're probably socialising him in ways that may cause him difficulty later on when he encounters the hard-man stereotypes. Ho hum. You can't win. I am both disconcerted and (oddly) comforted by the thought that his immediate family provides only one component in his socialisation. And in the end, he'll have to navigate his own route through the gender jungle.
0
ailbhe's daughter is in the habit of referring to herself as "boy" - as in, "boy get down now", presumably because so many other people do.1 These last are (as you can appreciate) the ones that really cause me to incandesce.
ailbhe recently recounted seeing two sets of vests in Primark: the boys' ones said things like "astronaut", "pirate", "fireman" and so on, while the girls' ones said things like "shopaholic" and "drama queen".2
cangetmad, you still on for starting that feminist baby-clothes business?3 And isn't it also curious that his wardrobe appears to be ENTIRELY my domain, and not
niallm's at all?
Re: Going off on a tangent....
Date: 2006-03-10 10:38 am (UTC)She mainly made our small-child clothes herself, because she didn't like what was in the shops. We wore a lot of dungarees and no pink. All five girls.