by On the precipice of welcoming my second daughter into the world, I found myself again traversing the vast landscape of Pinterest boards, scrolling for inspiration on nurseries and names. While browsing, I was struck by the oversaturation of the “gender neutral” aesthetic or what I would describe as the lack of anything “typically” feminine.
It’s been six years since I had my first daughter and while the trend towards a “gender neutral” style was emerging – with friends declaring their commitment to dressing and decorating in this way – this trend has been commercialized since since then. skyrocketed.
Related: Non-binary femininity: can genderless fashion transcend labels?
Google “gender neutral baby” and you’ll be met with an abundance of “neutral” baby clothes, “unisex” nurseries and toy lists carefully curated to eliminate anything that might be considered generically “girly”. This prompts me to question why blues and greens are acceptable gender-neutral colors but pinks and purples are not.
I appreciate the progressive attitudes that have expanded our girls’ lives to include sports, trucks, construction and engineering. This was a great step forward, but the prevailing attitude – often in more progressive circles – suggests that girls who embrace the “tomboy” image are seen as “cool”, while girls who leans towards the “guy” different from feminist ideals. What started as a noble idea has circled around, inadvertently judging girls and women. And while the future of girls may have been broadened to include interests and jobs once reserved for boys, have we broadened our horizons enough to include more feminine pursuits for boys? My comments don’t tell me.
Despite the push for gender neutrality, there is still an implicit devaluation of traditionally ‘girly’ features.
During the early years of my first daughter’s life, I was a member of an online feminist parenting group. I remember coming across a post that inspired me to consider attitudes towards “girliness”. In this post, a mother expressed her frustration at her daughter’s choice of purple moon roller skates, hoping her daughter would have “better” taste than choosing an ultra-feminine style. This led me to consider the contrast between conservative attitudes towards gender clothing and progressive attitudes. Could they both judge traditional feminine interests, albeit in different ways?
When my daughter turned two, she wanted a wardrobe that was completely pink, requiring her to only wear dresses – especially in favor of tutus or anything with extra frill or sparkle. Although my partner and I did not discuss raising our daughters in a gender-neutral way, we shopped in both sections of the clothing store. She wore trucker and dinosaur T-shirts as well as fairy and unicorn outfits. We made sure to buy both trucks and doll, hoping to let her explore her interests freely. However, from the beginning, she leaned heavily towards anything that was typically girly, showing almost no interest in the more “masculine” toys such as trucks. Well-meaning friends, aware of my feminist values, made comments like, “You must hate how much she loves pink.” I found this interesting because, despite being a proud feminist, I didn’t see a problem with her choice of clothing. Why should we shame pink and frills? Isn’t that another way of putting girls and women down?
In wider circles, the “gender neutral” trend shows a similar, but perhaps hotter tendency. Gender-neutral styles are moving towards clothes traditionally associated with boys, avoiding pink colors, frills, dresses or skirts. A societal double standard emerges where girls who wear traditional “boy” dress are fully accepted and boys who choose a skirt are labeled as “weird”. This observation raises concerns that, despite the push for gender neutrality, there is still an implicit devaluation of traditionally “girly” features, implying that they are considered “less than” – a view of inferiority that feminists and allies fighting against them for centuries.
And while these double standards affect how we view and value girls and women, it also has a significant impact on boys. A viral TikTok video of a dad castigating a childcare worker for letting his son wear a princess dress highlights society’s attitude towards boys questioning their natural inclinations. Not only does the seed of misogyny shame little boys into exploring traditional feminine aesthetics and interests, but it instills shame in those boys who want to explore them.
Related: Our gender obsession is not serving us well. Are we ready for creative gender parenting? | Nicola Heath
The societal devaluation of femininity begins at a very young age and the perception of parents, and the world in general, about the use of “girly” things instills itself into these little minds.
While the push for gender neutrality is laudable, I’d like to see it expand its scope to include pink and frills. By integrating elements of “girliness” into the concept of gender neutrality, we can raise a generation of children who don’t see pink as anti-feminist or less so. In addition, this wider acceptance may encourage the general public to be more open to allowing boys to explore feminine styles, ensuring that all children have the opportunity to experience the joy of turning into sparkly skirt as a basic rite of passage for youth.
As I begin to raise another daughter, my priority is always to make sure she can explore her interests free from shame or judgment. Whether she reaches for the frilly dress or the truck, I am committed to nurturing and encouraging every aspect of who she wants to be.
