Welcome to the MLP Arena!
Site Announcements Arena Tutorials Sigs & Site Support Introductions Pony Corral Swap Talk! Pony Fairs! MLP Nirvana Nirvana Sales Pony Brag Arena Off Topic Dollhouse Toy Box & Games Cupboard Customs Custom Sales Arts & Crafts Corral Adoptables For Sale - For Auction For Trade Wanted Trader & Classifieds Support What's Your Problem Private Messages Contact Us!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I dont think there is any harm in people having different opinions on this so lets not tell them to STFU and that they are being ridiculous for what they say. As I mentioned its a hot subject but one we should be able to discuss without calling each other out.
I don't have it to hand, but there's a really nice comic somewhere that says something along the lines of:Girls choosing pink (when given multiple options; the picture had a girl being offered stuff in blue/yellow/etc and chose pink) isn't the problem - it's making that the only choice that is. There's nothing wrong with liking pink, or any color, it's restricting color choices of stuff based on gender that's ridiculous.Boy stuff is "gender neutral" - it's more okay, societally, for girls to want boy toys. Boy toys come in every color. But if something is marketed to girls, that means it must be girls only, and it's "emasculating" or "unmanly" for a boy to want it. :/ And yeah, honestly, those stereotypes can be pretty damaging for someone of any gender! I don't know where I was going with this.
Oh--I think it's also worth pointing out that it's not just kids who are influenced by the gendered layouts of toys. It's also adults--from the parents who just plain won't let a girl play with "boy" toys or vice versa, to the ones who only look for birthday presents in the pink (or blue) aisle because it's been so ingrained in them that "pink is for girls, blue is for boys", to that one stupid relative who tells you that your little girl will grow up to be a lesbian (gasp!) if you buy her a football.
In Michael Kimmel’s outstanding Manhood in America: A Cultural History, he points out that clothing wasn’t colour-coded in America until the early twentieth century, before which little boys and girls were dressed pretty much identically. Even when people started pushing for more gender-specific children’s clothing, there was a huge debate over which colour to assign to which gender. It started out with boys wearing pink or red because the colours were seen to indicate strength, while girls wore blue because they were “flighty” like the sky. From a 1918 editorial called “Pink or Blue” cited by Kimmel:“There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. 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.”
Lol the best part is that the "pink is for girls and blue is for boys" is a relatively recent construction.
In the 1800s most infants were dressed in white, and gender differences weren't highlighted until well after the kids were able to walk. One theory is that distinguishing boys from girls was less important than distinguishing kids from adults. [...]By midcentury baby clothing in colors other than white had begun to appear, but gender-based distinctions were slow to emerge. In 1855 the New York Times reported on a "baby show" put on by P.T. Barnum, exhibiting "one hundred and odd babies" dressed in pinks, blues, and other colors seemingly without regard to gender. [...] it took decades to develop a consensus on what those colors were. For years one camp claimed pink was the boys' color and blue the girls'. [...]