Hermenuetics

Comments

Hear hear! Thank you sooooo much! Similar, is that I don't have a "sports boy". My son couldn't be less interested in sports and I've been told, "It's good for boys". WHY? He loves to create, draw, do make believe, etc.

So glad to have this blog post. Saving it. AND reposting.

Posted By: Joline Atkins | April 18, 2011 11:40 AM

Yes, yes! Wonderful article, agree with everything. Thank you for including the facts about children's clothing in the 19th century as well - it is all true.

And I agree, the worst thing about all of this is the sexualization of children! This, I believe, is the real issue.

And do we really think that one's sexuality is so flippant that dressing a child in pink determines whether he or she will be come straight or gay? Gender is MUCH more ingrained than that! I firmly believe there are differences between the genders, but they are far more than clothes-deep. We're sidetracked by all the wrong differences.

Posted By: Nadine S | April 18, 2011 12:08 PM

Its articles like this one that make me momentarily glad that I don't have kids. I do long for them (and if I'm not married by a certain age, I will be adopting; Lord willing) but articles like this one just irk me - not the content - no I fully agree Ellen, but the the whispers about these poor little boys behind their backs - and what parents deal with trying to bring up their children in a Godly environment.

Posted By: Leslie | April 18, 2011 1:08 PM

I was appalled for the same reasons when I first heard about this. Why, Why, WHY must we sexualize our children?!?!? The only reason they have a clue about "sexual orientation" or "gender roles" is because we, the adults, teach them. I am in no way saying that they are gender neutral, I believe God made us male and female. What I am saying is that they are gender unaware, and they should be for a while.

If my son wants his nails painted when I do mine, I do it. We used to do that to my brother when he was little and he has grown up into a wonderful man of God that I am proud to call brother, and has married a woman we all love dearly. We didn't warp him or turn him gay or transgendered because we, his two older sisters, forced him to play dress up with us.

Posted By: Kara Nutt | April 18, 2011 2:15 PM

I have no children, but am also disturbed by the fracas (great word, Ellen) around a boy's pink tonails. And there is another aspect of this that bothers me, not one mentioned here but one I have experienced. There is often such derision of a boy's choices that we label feminine that I suspect relays the women-are-inferior-to-men assumptions that continue to plague our society. From simple things, like "tom-boy" girls are admired but "girly" boys are derided, all the way to the fact that so much health research focuses on men and thier diseases at the expense of women's diseases (not to mention that the illnesses most commonly women's - Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, to name one - are often dismissed by the professional community and are poorly represented in medical research.

It's just that these attitudes seem to me to be indicative of a great ill in our religions, our culture, our law, etc.

Posted By: Carol D. Marsh | April 18, 2011 2:34 PM

I have all daughters that like to play with Legos, Hot Wheels and Star Wars toys along with their Barbies, Polly Pockets and nail polish. I don't know why this is more socially acceptable than if they were boys, but I'm glad my family doesn't have to deal with it!

Posted By: Jeff | April 18, 2011 3:30 PM

These same people are rarely disturbed by "tom boy" girls. Why is that? Whats the big deal?

Posted By: Caris | April 18, 2011 3:49 PM

My son is a dancer. When he gets the comments that male dancers are gay, he responds with...

a) Hang out with sweaty guys in locker rooms
b) Hang out with girls in leotards

Who's gay?

Posted By: BNN | April 18, 2011 3:56 PM

Thank you all for your encouraging comments. This was a hard but necessary post for me to write, and I'm glad to know there are others who were equally disturbed by the reaction to the J. Crew ad.

One part that I had to cut for length purposes was about my oldest daughter, who has always preferred "boy" clothes (blue, green, dinosaurs, camo, etc.) and "boy" toys (trucks, trains, dinos, sharks, etc.). Girls who gravitate toward "boyish" stuff are not only not chastised, they are actually encouraged.

I think Carol's comment hits the nail on the head. The reason for this double standard is that boys/men and traits more often associated with men are seen as valuable, so girls who like "boy" stuff are perceived as trading up. On the other hand,girls/women and traits associated with women are seen as less valuable, so boys who like "girl" stuff are perceived as trading down. It's rooted in good old-fashioned sexism as well as a sexualized adult culture.

Posted By: Ellen | April 18, 2011 4:39 PM

I am glad that I had a father who instilled in me a love of poetry, as well as encouraging a love of the beauty of nature. He was also a man who manfully took on the responsibilities of being a man
Of course there is no harm in a small boy wanting to wear pink, or play with dolls. But this is a very different thing from the gender-bending days being put on in schools where children are encouraged to dress as the opposite sex. The philosophy of this program in the schools is expressed in the following words from a handbook put out for teachers: "’The Gender Spectrum’ refers to the idea that there are many gender identities (female, male, transgender, two-spirit, etc.). Gender identity may or may not conform to common expectations around one’s gender identity.” (cited in "The Latest Assault on BC Children. . ." at www.bcptl.org)
On the one hand, we should avoid elevating into unchangeable standards the minutae of cultural recognition of the difference in the sexes. On the other hand, we should not allow our children to be brainwashed into accepting the denial of the natural order in which the recognition of the value of each sex should play a role.

Posted By: Ted Hewlett | April 18, 2011 5:03 PM

It bothers me that, whenever somone gives birth, friends don't asked about the health of the child, or mother, but rather, "Is it a boy or girl?"

Posted By: Gene Janowski | April 18, 2011 5:57 PM

While I understand the author's perspective on this issue. I don't agree. We live in a culture where sexual identity is a big issue. Small things can later make a big difference. There may be nothing inherently wrong with little boys wearing pink nail polish..but the reaction of others to this can have its own effect.

It makes no sense to go back in time to a period when pink was not associated with girls.. in out time period it is.. boys don't wear dresses. It is important to give each child a sense of identity that is strong enough to overcome the dysfunction in our culture. My two granddaughters find it very easy to keep their brother from identifying with girlish things and I think their instincts are correct.

They know that he is a boy and they are not happy when he tries to be too much like them. This does not mean sterotyping masculine and feminine characteristics. It does mean keeping good boundaries and helping children understand that they may be at risk of being judged if they look or act a certain way. It is for their protection.

Posted By: Alicia | April 18, 2011 6:02 PM

When I was younger, I wore pink and liked unicorns. Two things today very much associated with what girls should like. After a period of time basically a couple of decades, I have started to wear pink again. It is both a quiet subdue and flamboyant loud choice.

I have taken to wearing pink fuzzy socks during two types of occasions. One is when I dance and the other is during my lodge meetings. I wear them to remind me to laugh and love life. My Brothers rib me about my socks, but the fuzzy pink socks bring smiles and laughter among us at every meeting. And the women I dance with get a kick out of them very much and it leads to more dances with more women.

For the record I am a straight man, not one bit confused about my gender, get plenty of dates, consider stylish by my peers, and I once and now again proudly wear pink.

Posted By: Jason | April 18, 2011 6:51 PM

Good points in Ellen's blog and also in the follow-up about the lack of criticism about "sporty" girls; I would add that as recently as the 80s, boys and men wore pastel oxfords and polos of all shades of pink. I think of this because this blog reminded me of my younger brother who as a pre-schooler loved pink and was the willing victim of my periodic manicures and pedicures. He ended up a state level swimmer, fraternity guy, and is now a hetero sports-loving dad of three boys. However, his best man at his (1990s) wedding had fun reminding us not to forget how much my brother really loved his pink and yellow shirts -- complete with matching socks! We need to keep a sense of humor about this stuff.

Posted By: Pam | April 18, 2011 7:01 PM

Very funny that Jason and I just crossedposts about pink socks!

Posted By: Pam | April 18, 2011 7:06 PM

Fabulous post - thank you Ellen! Love this: "God created us as sexual beings, but he also gives us children who are refreshingly free of the need to categorize and sexualize other people." Amen!

Posted By: Jennifer Grant | April 18, 2011 7:12 PM

Amusing to see posters simultaneously cry "we shouldn't sexualize children" and, the same breath, eagerly assert the how heterosexual the boy is.

Posted By: Beatrice | April 18, 2011 7:26 PM

Ellen,

Thank you for writing this blog. It is a wonderful response to what is going on. I stumbled across this post on Google and randomly chose to read it.

You and I have some differences - I am an atheist. I honestly have to say your post was refreshing. The most vocal Christians tend to be those that would, for example, believe there is something wrong with painting a little boy's toenails. Your post was a nice reminder that there are good, reasonable, intelligent believers in this world. (That last statement is not meant to insult anyone, and I hope you won't take it the wrong way. The fact is that I read/hear a lot of Christians who are far less accepting, reasonable and intelligent. I am simply trying to say it's nice to be reminded that people like you exist. I'd like to think that the majority of believers are more like you than the very vocal religious.)

Posted By: Amanda | April 18, 2011 8:55 PM

a beautiful post and important in the midst of these strange responses to a sweet and precious slice of life in the J.Crew ad. part of our responsibility to children is to protect their innocence in delighting in things that simply make them happy, are fun and allow them to develop with creativity and self-agency. good on you for parenting with such insight, love and appreciation of your children. very christ-like, indeed. thank you, Ellen!

Posted By: Pressley | April 19, 2011 5:17 AM

Ellen thanks for the post!

The sexualization of children at such a young age is what disturbs me. Yes, I believe that God made us man and woman, and different. But I think that is a totally separate issue from is happening in our culture. Kids are put in boxes as sexual beings at a very young age!

It sounds so simple but let kids be kids. I agree with someone else who made the point that gender is not so flippant that it can be determined by whether a child wears pink or paints their nails a certain color.

It is in fact our preoccupation with sexuality as adults that does the most damage to our kids.

Posted By: Dierdra | April 19, 2011 7:12 AM

It is funny how little boys should not wear pink but we are seeing a growing trend in Grown Hetero-sexual men wearing pink tones of Shirts, Ties and other accessories in pink when the mood suits them...We find those men "in touch" with thier softer side. We love gentle men, that is why we call them Gentlemen. I think that the author hits a hard but important chord that we as a society focus way to much way too early on the sexuality and not the personhood of a child.

Posted By: Cheryl Sperling | April 19, 2011 8:23 AM

Fabulous post! Wow! So true. My 15 year old son has long hair just cause he wants long hair. What's the big deal? God doesn't judge the outer appearance. He judges the heart. And my 9 year old son is such a happy boy. He's had his toenails painted -- it was no big deal. It doesn't become a big deal until some adult shames a boy about something like this. And my 11 year old wears tights almost daily because he won't keep his socks on and his circulation is so poor. They are girl tights but I call them superhero tights for him (he can't walk -- uses a wheelchair).

If all we cared about were the exteriors of our boys (or girls) we would be raising superficial people.

Some people just have to get over themselves.

Posted By: Jane Hinrichs | April 19, 2011 10:33 AM

Thank you so much for this to-the-point article. I have always been annoyed at the pink-are-for-girls/blue-is-for-boys phenomenon and everything else that encompasses. I also always found it unfair that little girls can play with trucks and be tomboys, but boys can't play with dolls or nail polish without raising eyebrows.

Thanks also for bringing up facts from the past - ie. a 100 years ago boys and girls dressed the same until age 6 and the pink/blue thing was reversed. I never thought about these things before.

And finally, "God created us male and female, but he did not decree which colors and fashion accessories are appropriate for boys and girls." YES YES YES! We always have to remember that we serve a God who does not stay within the dotted lines of our socially-constructed world. Otherwise, we continue to try to re-create a god in our own image instead of the true God.

Thank you, Ellen!!

Posted By: even one sparrow | April 19, 2011 10:58 AM

Quote: 'The aim of the Jewish "Anti Defamation League" is to establish the federal government as the pro-homosexual educator and punisher of Christian opponents of homosexuality at every level, even of public schooling. HR 4530 amounts to federal endorsement of adolescent homosexuality as a legitimate, normal alternative. The bill will flood government-sponsored educational programs into public schools to promote homosexual self-esteem. Its encouragement of homosexuality on the grade school level will destroy young consciences even before they have been formed. Indeed, the ADL will gain more ground in their attempt to sodomize America..'. The New Testament condemns Judaism in 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 7 - Christian writers should not tolerate the ADL or its fellow-travellers.

Posted By: Jim Delaney | April 19, 2011 11:44 AM

First - The Bible does *not* condemn Judaism - Jesus practiced Judaism for crying out loud! And for the first 400 years Christianity was considered a Jewish sect until the Romans took it over.

Second - where did you get that quote from? A google search of this supposed quote brings up where several different men under different names over the last several years have posted the exact same verbiage on CT forums. Another quick google search shows where HR 4530 was from the previous Congress and never made it out of committee!

Posted By: Watchman | April 19, 2011 2:06 PM

My 3rd son wears a pink t-shirt that proclaims "Tough Guys Wear Pink".

Posted By: Scott | April 19, 2011 2:45 PM

A very sad article. 'God created us male and female' but apparently in spite of that, we should treat everyone as a single sex - female. 'Take that, God - you don't seem so freakin powerful now!' One of the major reasons our world is the way it is today is because men are not allowed to be masculine anymore. This 'raise them as girls, it's okay' attitude defies God and common sense.

Posted By: jojo | April 19, 2011 9:01 PM

This article certainly has some merit (i.e. if a little boy wants his toenails painted with his sisters, big deal).
But it's not just about the sexualization of children. The author fails to see the significance of benign cultural norms.

In Uruguay, for example, men kiss one another on the cheek in church, but not elsewhere. At first, it seemed strange and awkward. In time I came to realize it was no different than a hug in North America -- merely a way to communicate warmth and inclusion.

She writes, "But our innate gender differences are not synonymous with the culturally mandated differences apparent in the J. Crew controversy." I think she misses the point. Culture is extremely complex, and simply because it is normative for boys to be expected to prefer blue over pink (at this point in time), it that does not follow that we need to jettison that norm. According to this reasoning, it would be perfectly fine for little boys to adopt other "feminine" behaviors (i.e. wearing lipstick). But we know that would be absurd, and would beg the question of sexuality.

So, provided it is not somehow contrary to biblical principles, I see no mandate for we as Christians, or anyone else for that matter, to challenge perfectly legitimate cultural norms and corresponding behaviors. They do not define us, but they shape how males and females function with some modicum of mutual understand in an already very challenging social environment.

Posted By: D. LaClare | April 20, 2011 1:35 AM

D. LaClare - Some cultural norms, however, are oppressive. In a democracy it is our right to reflect critically on them, keeping those of value and discarding those that have none.

And the author suggests that defining gender along the rigid lines of blue and pink IS "contrary to Biblical principles."

"They do not define us, but they shape how males and females function"

What's the difference? How we act is part of who we are.

Posted By: Nadine S | April 20, 2011 8:05 AM

Interesting all the support for the article from women. Only two males commented and one disagreed. I am fine with the color preferences. Getting pushed into "dress-up" with sisters happens to many boys. Having dresses (or heels, painted nails, or female names) forced on them by well-meaning adult is different and damaging. Encourage your sons creativity, compassion, and preferences, but don't push femininity on him so you can be "enlightened" with your friends. Just let them be.

Posted By: Dave | April 20, 2011 2:05 PM

Dave - nobody is suggesting pushing anything on any children, girls or boys. That's the whole point of the article - "Just let them be."

Posted By: Nadine S | April 20, 2011 6:15 PM

We are doing our young men a disservice by praising them for wearing pink and painting their toe nails. Really? Lets grow up adults ... lets let boys be boys and girls be girls .... no young boy should grow up feeling "pretty" stand up dads and be an example ... and lets be honest here women ... do you want a pretty husband or a strong masculine man? The secularization of the male and female roles has gone on long enough .... help your young boys ... don't go along with an effeminate world ...(your daughters will thank you some day0

Posted By: jane cooper | April 21, 2011 1:51 AM

I guess I missed the part in the Bible where it said feminine meant weak, docile and wearing makeup?

Oh, that's right! Wearing makeup used to be unisex! Pink used to be masculine. ANd I really need to get my ancient Mediterranean female garb, lest I break any rules about dressing like the opposite gender (oh right, some Mediterranean female clothes included pants). As for the docile aspects, Proverbs 31 shows a smart, strong, business woman to be a good wife. We have all those badass females like Judith (if you're Catholic), Deborah and Jael. And, I'm betting Mary was a feisty mama (if she's anything like the Mediterranean and Jewish women in my family and community).

People need to get over it. Most of our gender norms in the U.S. come from patriarchal English culture and ideas such as pink come from very recent times. If people spent as much time helping the poor (on the ground and in politics) as they did fretting over gender norms, we wouldn't be in the crisis we're in.

Posted By: Katie | April 21, 2011 7:31 AM

Pink is pretty and sorry but I don't want to marry a pretty man ... and it doesn't matter what kind of semantics or historical jargon you want to use .... most of today's men are downright "pretty"
They are not a turn on in fact they are a turn off ....and we can convince ourselves that what you wear doesn't matter but it most certainly does!
Not only to they look "pretty" in pink .... they also "act pretty in pink .... they are "soft and sweet" and it is downright sickening ...
I would like to know that if my house got broken into that my man was ready to defend me and my children ....
I feel sorry for all these little boys that are namby pambied around being told how sweet they are ...
And oh on a final note .... i have 3 sons and 1 daughter who all enjoy being active and healthy ....

Posted By: jane cooper | April 21, 2011 5:34 PM

I won't be happy until my little girl can stand at the urinal with all the pink toe nailed boys!

Posted By: fed up | April 22, 2011 9:05 AM

My 54-year-old husband looks great in both pink and purple and is man enough to wear them, including in the pulpit. Yes, he's an evangelical pastor, and, no, he doesn't think there's anything unmanly about wearing whatever color you look good in. And Jane, my husband is more than able to protect me if anyone ever broke into our home (I'm not understanding how the color of his shirt makes him weak or afraid). He was strong enough to haul sides of beef as a meatcutter to put himself through seminary and to haul men out of crack houses when he worked in city ministry. I'm confident he could haul me out of any danger. And I love how he looks in pink.

Posted By: Carol Cool | April 22, 2011 7:20 PM

GENDER is a social construct. God did not create genders. SEX is biological. God created two sexes: male and female. (Although there are a (rare) few people out there who fit neither one of these sex categories.)

Now that that's out of the way.

Applause for the author!!!! You understand that IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL that the kid was either A) wearing nail polish nor B) that it was pink. Even going with the argument of socially constructed gender norms, neither the wearing of nail polish nor the color pink are gender-restricted to females in our current culture. Probably about 75% of my friends with boys, ages 2-20, say their boys have or still do wear nail polish. None of them are confused about their gender. Nor are they confused about their sex, for that matter.

You also understand the FAR, FAR MORE IMPORTANT point that it is *adults* projecting issues of sexuality onto children that is the real problem here. The idea that wearing pink nail polish would make a child homosexual or transgendered is as ridiculous as the idea that wearing purple nail polish would make him an eggplant, to loosely quote a friend. I know this is shouting, but I truly feel it must be shouted, and directed toward the world at large:

STOP SEXUALIZING MY KIDS!

Posted By: Robyn | April 23, 2011 9:05 PM

Ah, good to see all these comments. I'm glad to know that putting pink nail polish on my daughter won't turn her into a heterosexual.

Posted By: Kathleen | April 24, 2011 9:45 PM

THANK YOU for posting this!! So true, and I agree it's something that often gets overlooked be people on all sides of the issue.

Posted By: Amy | April 24, 2011 9:50 PM

Hi Carol
I'm glad your husband looks good in pink or purple but I still say that men look "pretty" in pink ... we can run around the bush on this topic all night but we are doing our boys a disservice by dressing them in pretty ways.
I am so sick of people trying to act tolerant and cool with all the dictates of society. Anyone walking through any mall can notice that the fashion for men today is quite sweet and pretty and I for one am sick of it ... and men in general are getting skinnier and less muscular. Sorry that's just how i see it ...

Posted By: jane cooper | April 24, 2011 10:53 PM

Fools grow without watering.

Posted By: Sophia Amateur | April 25, 2011 5:28 AM

SHOULD WE ALLOW NAIL POLISH ON CHILDREN male or female?

Conventional nail polishes dispensed at most drugstores and nail salons contain a veritable witch’s brew of chemicals, including toluene, which has been linked to a wide range of health issues from simple headaches and eye, ear, nose and throat irritation to nervous system disorders and damage to the liver and kidneys. Another common yet toxic ingredient in conventional nail polish is a chemical plasticizer known as dibutyl phthalate (DBP).

Also, studies have linked DBP to underdeveloped genitals and other reproductive system problems in newborn boys. As such, DBP is banned from cosmetics in the European Union but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States has taken no such action, even though a recent study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found DBP and other toxic phthalates in the bloodstreams of every person they tested. Further, five percent of women tested who were of childbearing age (ages 20-40) had up to 45 times more of the chemicals in their bodies than researchers had expected to find. EWG attributes the prevalence of DBP in young women to widespread use of nail polish.

Posted By: katybug | April 25, 2011 9:59 AM

I think this is a great article and completely agree. The point about girls wearing string bikinis and high heels, etc is a perfect example of kids being sexualized that I notice constantly. I've also been disturbed by how much sexy lingerie for grown women there is in stores that looks like it could also be found in the little girl's clothing section, and tend to not buy things that look too kiddish. I understand women want underwear that is feminine and cute, but I have at times wondered if we are encouraging men to think about sex in a childish way with what we wear...(ie Hello Kitty thong) and worry about this being unhealthy. Just a thought.

Posted By: Julia | April 26, 2011 11:33 PM

Katie, well said regarding gender norms vs. actually helping people.

When I was a young boy, I played with guns. I also had my nails painted a couple of times. Sometimes I played Barbies with my younger sister. My mom has a video of me as a small child "building a nest" out of blankets and proclaiming that I was a "mommy bird." As an adult, I've never struggled with any gender identiy issues. I love poetry and natural beauty and some things which might be "girly." I'm also an active-duty Marine and have been for over eight years. I don't think some non-stereotypical choices as a child kept me from becoming a strong or masculine man. I do think that being allowed to decide on my own what I liked as a kid has made me a better man and, more importantly, a better Christian than I might have been otherwise.

Posted By: Rick | April 27, 2011 6:40 AM

Nadine,
You asked what the difference was between our "identity" and "function" as males and females. My point is that there is nothing inherently wrong for males to wear pink, but certain cultural norms influence, or even dictate, our behavior. Let me use another example: as a woman would you wear a "butch" or "dyke" haircut? Why not? If you are heterosexual,it's probably because you wouldn't want to be mistaken for a lesbian. But there is nothing inherently wrong with a short haircut. That does not make non-butch haircuts for women, or wearing blue for boys, culturally "oppressive." There will always be a distinction between identity and function, and that's not always a bad thing.

Posted By: D. LaClare | April 28, 2011 10:02 AM

D. LaClare - Sorry, but I don't really understand your post. A person's participation in cultural normativity, whether by choice or by force, contributes to who they are. This has been the case with women for centuries. In the 19th c. women learned from an early age that wearing restrictive clothing such as hoop skirts, corsets and high heels was appropriate feminine dress and that therefore it was also appropriate that women should refrain from activities which required non-restrictive attire, such as sports. You can argue that this false conception of female identity came first and cultural norms followed - but it doesn't matter; female participation in continuing to wear restrictive dress perpetuated false perceptions of female identity.

You can say we should always just follow the norms of our day, but those norms are always changing. A hundred years ago women did not wear pants. Does your wife/mother wear pants (if you're a man)? Do you think she could go back in time to 1895 and simply doff pants, with her 20th century awareness of not only the ridiculousness, but the, yes, oppressive nature of such an idea? How are you going to stick to the notion of what is considered "female" and "male" attire today, when it changes in 30 years? Which norm will you stick with?

Posted By: Nadine | April 28, 2011 7:07 PM

Thank you for posting this. This story and its controversy made me so sad because I remember a friend once telling me about how her youngest son (age 4) loved pink, dress up, playing house, and playing with her jewelery, but her husband who was a pastor was extremely concerned about this. He took out all the pink crayons form the crayon box and discouraged any "feminine" activities. I often wonder what this little boy will think when he grows up. Will he internalize the shame that was placed on him at an age when he simply was developing his own tastes and creativity? I couldn't help but think that it was really a sexual/gender insecurity on the parent's part that was projected onto the little boy's behavior. It seemed so silly (almost laughable to think that liking pink as a four year old would be an indicator of one's sexual orientation) BUT also potentially very destructive.

Posted By: chi | April 28, 2011 9:31 PM

Nadine,
My point is that cultural norms are not always oppressive.
You stated earlier that some are. Agreed. But the expectation for boys to wear blue rather than pink is not one of them. One could say that it is culturally normative that pregnant teenage girls get an abortion. That is clearly not biblical, and should be dissuaded and opposed within the confines of the law.

I never said that we should always follow cultural norms. That may be the source of your misunderstanding. You continue by asking whether my wife/mother wear pants (ah, you assumed I was a male)! Of course they wear pants, but their identity as women would not be jeopardized if they chose not to, and wore only dresses. That serves to strengthen my argument -- we as Christians can CHOOSE what we think is best in light of biblical principles. But sometimes (not always), the cultural norm is just fine and will not affect their identity in the least -- like boys wearing blue instead of pink! If you or the author want your boys to wear pink clothes or swim goggles, that is perfectly fine! I am NOT one of these ultra-conservatives bashing your freedom to dress your children however you like. But to claim that the contemporary, generally-expressed "blue for boys" and "pink for girls" is somehow oppressive -- give me a break! Slavery is oppressive, the sexual exploitation of women is oppressive, unfair trade policies are oppressive -- and warrant our engagement.

And for the record, both my sons have had their toenails painted because they wanted to, without the interference of dad.

Posted By: D. LaClare | May 2, 2011 3:46 PM

D LaClare - I never said all cultural norms are oppressive.

"their identity as women would not be jeopardized if they chose not to, and wore only dresses"

But this is MY point, and the point of the author, that cultural activities people CHOOSE are generally not oppressive, precisely because they chose them.

The idea that pink is for girls can be oppressive. It's associated with a whole host of stereotypes about femininity.

Posted By: Nadine | May 3, 2011 12:08 PM

Ellen, I love this post. I came here from Catherine Newman's blog. I hope it's ok if I use this article for my students in a media writing class on advertising. I teach at a Christian university, and I think this would be fantastic reading/discussion material for them.

Posted By: alice | May 10, 2011 8:14 PM

Alice - As far as I know, it's fine for you to use the article as long as you attribute it. I'm glad you liked it and think it will be useful for your class! Love that!

Posted By: Ellen | May 10, 2011 9:06 PM

I appreciate this article. However, I am disturbed by the way that the issue is discussed, some in the article but primarily in the comments. While there seem to be differing views on whether pink nail polish causes one to later associate with a gender different than one's biological attributes, there seems to be little disagreement that a child coming to identify as LGBTQ would be problematic. In other words the two arguments seem to be 1) Pink nail polish does not equal trans-gendered identity, and 2) pink nail polish does equal trans-gendered identity.

The assumption for both of these arguments seems to be that a child's coming to identify as a tran-gendered individual or LGBTQ would be a problem.

I am well aware that this is likely an extremely unpopular view here... and I do not mean to polarize to board into "gay=bad" or "not bad" discussion. Indeed, I only want to point out that the dominant language utilized here assumes that LGBTQ=bad. In the above assumption the value of individuals self-identifying as LGBTQ is also assumed. In other words, it's okay to paint your child's toes pink so long as it goes not lead to gayness. In this language we create mere caricatures of LGBTQ communities and close off conversation regarding gender with large groups of people.

Issues of gender, sex, LGBTQ, marriage (among strait and LGBTQ persons) are some of the most controversial and difficult topics of our time. But, in order to even enter the conversation, we must do so lovingly, which means that we must first and foremost confront our own assumptions and language.

Posted By: Angela | May 19, 2011 1:05 AM

Pink? There is nothing wrong in allowing your son wear pink. We all have to know that pink doesn't symbolizes anything when a male wears one. According to the following research, pink is the color that corresponds for men which is far negating the idea of blue as the color for men. It is worth to wear.

Posted By: Beverly | August 11, 2011 3:20 PM

A couple of thoughts: that God created us male and female is not entirely true. Although one commenter above (Robyn, I think?) mentions this, she underestimates the occurrence: the variation in sexual status is actually quite great. Between 1-2% of live births are intersex (displaying sexual characteristics of both male and female).

Also, I'm glad to know that my son, who enjoys both baseball and turquoise toenail polish, will never be approached by a jane cooper, a commenter above who seems to have such a limited perspective on masculinity that she'd be as well-served getting a strong, muscular doberman to guard her house as a "real man."

Posted By: jana | August 23, 2011 10:13 PM