By now most of you are familiar with the recent J. Crew ad featuring designer Jenna Lyons painting the toenails of her 5-year-old son, Beckett, with neon pink polish.
For a little over a week political pundits, parents and psychologists alike have hotly debated whether or not it is OK for boys to wear pink. According to Dr. Keith Ablow, psychologist and Fox News contributor, it is most certainly NOT OK.
"Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your 'innocent' pleasure," Ablow said in his article on Fox Health.
Ablow also went on to argue that allowing boys to "playact like little girls" is as unwise as "to dress little girls like miniature adults (in halter tops and shorts emblazoned with PINK across the bottoms)."
Yet, why does he argue for the strict curtailing of gender exploration by boys while mentioning the need to keep girls innocent, rather than point out an equal need to keep girls from experimenting with masculine identities or activities? If he is going to argue that the color pink somehow makes this little boy "transgender" (which yes, he did allude to), then he might as well argue that liking the color blue does the same to little girls. Sexualization is a big issue with raising young girls, this is true, but is it comparable to boys experimenting with pink toenail polish? No. Also, if you're going to argue for keeping little girls innocent, why not argue the same for the boys? Do we ever hear people like Dr. Ablow point out how sexualizing little girls also has an affect on the little boys and how they perceive those same girls? What about the increase in aggression among young boys and men? Do we decry that on the same level? No. In fact, Ablow seems to think that aggression should be praised, stating, "I wonder what Jenna would think if her son wanted to celebrate his masculinity with a little playacting as a cowboy, with a gun? Would that bring the same smile of joy and pure love that we see on her face in the J. Crew advertisement? Or would that be where she might draw the line?"
Oh, so playing with a gun is somehow better than the color pink if you're a boy...yeah, that sounds like a great thing to encourage.
What I've noticed this past week, after browsing several sites, is that there has been little said on those double-standards male and female children are held to. It is much more acceptable for a little girl to explore "masculine" identities--playing with trucks, tools and action figures--than it is for young boys to explore "feminine" identities by playing dress up or wearing the color pink.
Yet from the looks of things, many parents of young boys have witnessed their children engaging in definitively "female" play, such as caring for a doll or dressing up as their favorite Disney princess.
For instance, on the Parenting.com article that weighed in on the issue, commentor Natalie P. had the following to say:
"I have a 4 year old son with my partner. We are a loving family, where the parents happen to be 2 lesbian mothers. He is surrounded by girls most of the time...he and my niece are obsessed with Cinderella right now. they like to wear dresses and BE Cinderella. I have absolutely no problem with it. Before Cinderella, they were obsessed with cars and wore Lightning Mcqueen baseball hats. Both of them. No one ever tells a girl that she cant like cars but they do tell a boy that he cant like dresses..."
I personally see nothing wrong with this ad, and even consider the mother-son time pictured to be incredibly healthy and beneficial to young Beckett and mother Jenna's relationship. When boys are taught that pink is actually an OK color and not something to run screaming from, they learn not to fear the things considered "feminine" and thus will be more free in determining their likes and interests in the future. Not to mention, boys who are OK with the girlie stuff will likely relate to girls better down the road--and the opposite is true for girls, as well.
Dr. Susan Bartell appeared on the CBS Early Show to talk about the ad and the attacks on Lyon's parenting choices.
“[Our kids] gender is going to emerge naturally as part of who they are and has nothing to do with whether we put pink nail polish on them,” Bartell said.
I would like to point out that pink, historically, had been the designated baby color for boys, while blue was for girls, up until the 20th century. This fact alone is proof that the color you wear in your formative years has little to no impact on your gender. If that were the case and Dr. Ablow was correct in his assumptions, then today's society would be chock full of transgendered men and women, as opposed to the roughly 1 percent of the population who currently identify themselves as such.
And why shouldn't boys like pink? It's bright and vibrant, full of life and vigor. Pink makes a statement. Yet today everything from toys to clothing to toaster ovens get drenched in pink and are marketed exclusively toward girls. Walk through any store past the toy aisles and you may begin to wonder if girls are aware that other colors exist.
The strict assigning of gender roles is apparent, and more and more often any deviation of children from gender norms will either be put in check by a parent, by a peer, or in this case by the media.
No comments:
Post a Comment