Rant of Resurrection

Okay. Time to get back into this. I had hoped to update this weekly, but, like all good web people, I had life get in the way. (Not that anyone, at this point in time cares: as of writing, this is still an unknown blog. If you are reading this, hello reader! I hope you enjoy your stay! Please make your presence known so I don't just feel like I'm talking to myself!)

Anyway, I was in my local office supplies store the other day, doing some shopping (and luckily, out-waiting the big rushes) when I overheard a mom talking with one of the employees. She seemed to be looking for a pencil box, and the only selection on the shelf was a light purple and pink. She turned back to him and said, "Don't you have any boy colors? My son won't want any of these."

And this got me thinking. By whose law and judgement was purple (which is the fusion of red and blue, using subtractive coloring methods) deemed a "girl color" versus a "boy color"? Why is it a cardinal sin in society for a boy to have a pink-colored, well, anything? It's just a color, for heaven's sake! And yet, for an (I dunno - I'm just guessing here) elementary school boy to walk around with a pink pencil box would be the end of the world. Why?

According to my research (aka 15 minutes of googling), it seems that the "Pink for girls and Blue for boys" convention originated no earlier than the 1940's or 1950's, and that it was, at one time, reversed - it used to be accepted, and even expected, for boys to wear pink clothing. The thought was, it seems, that pink, as a lighter shade of red, was more appropriate for the boy, as red is that fiery, fierce color we all know it to be. In addition, blue was associated with the Virgin Mary for a long time, and as such, was more appropriate for young girls. My research fails to find any definite indication of why the switch happened, but clearly it did.

I guess my biggest problem with this whole deal comes from the double standard. In modern American society, it is A-Okay (according to most people) for women to wear or have things that are masculine, such as the archetypal 'wearing pants.' On the other hand, God forbid that a man do something feminine - be it have a "fruity" cocktail, hold a hand bag, or (God forbid!) wear a skirt. After all, when a women imitates a man, so I gather, she is praised for being outgoing, assertive, powerful, strong and other such adjectives. When the opposite happens, we (obviously) get the opposites for the previous list being used.

Huh. It's almost like men who act in a manner considered effeminate are seen as lesser; like that it's a bad thing.

Oh wait. Culturally, it is. Who knew? And, of course, the root of the problem is either homophobia or just xenophobia. Either way, there’s something about men who aren’t manly that leaves a poor taste in most people’s mouths. (Case in point, this: http://theoatmeal.com/blog/utilikilt )Women have it a little easier, since they’re moving up the implied social ladder, but at the same time, we still have the concept of the glass ceiling, an invisible barrier in the workplace that functions as a “No Girls Allowed” sign.

And this carries over from the parents to their children. Every time a parent says “Oh, he won’t like that. It’s a girl color,” they’re passing on the pattern that he should avoid things that are “girly;” that boys shouldn’t like girls’ things. Because, clearly, the aforementioned boy with a pink pencil box means the boy is immediately doomed as a man.

Yes, I understand that kids are cruel, and yes I understand that children will ostracize another over the smallest things; in the third grade, I wasn’t allowed to sit at a lunch table because I was wearing a striped shirt. Arbitrary? Very. Cruel? Probably. Did I get over it? Yeah. The only reason I remember it was because my parents have mentioned it before. So, if people’ll jump all over you for something like that, imagine what a boy wearing pink would have to go through. Life would probably be hell, as he’d be an outcast for not conforming.

On the other hand, imagine what would happen if he was surrounded with friends who didn’t mind. The answer in this case? Nothing’d happen. They’d continue on as usual, no matter what clothes he wore.

The point here is tolerance, and acceptance. After all, there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with boys having pink things – it’s only ‘wrong’ because society has said pink is for girls. Even if we hold onto the custom of pink for girls and blue for boys, no problems arise when people are understanding and tolerant of differences.

None of this would be a problem, however, if there wasn’t that silly little dichotomy between how the sexes are seen. As mentioned, despite all of the steps we’re taken towards gender equality, there’s still the underlying assumption that men are higher than women, in some way. And well, that seems to go against what I thought, for instance, the feminism movement was pushing for. Sure, now it’s understood and widely accepted that women can, should and do anything a man can do, but until the inverse happens, we’ll never have true gender equality. And well, to me, it’s something worth fighting for, a world in which gender expressions of all varieties are accepted and understood to be equally valid without any hierarchy.

A world where I could wear a skirt, if I so wanted, without having my masculinity questioned.

(And, for the curious, it seemed that no, they didn't have anymore. The mother left a little unhappy.)