海角大神

What would you think of Woody from聽Toy Story聽if he wore pink?

Would you think the color choice was incongruous 鈥� that it didn鈥檛 seem masculine enough for a 1950s-era cowboy toy?

Well, you鈥檇 be wrong. Check out the top image to the left from the聽1955 Sears Christmas Book catalog聽that Elizabeth Sweet, a newly minted Ph.D. from the University of California at Davis, sent me. Here鈥檚 Roy Rogers Apparel, featuring Roy Rogers and his son, Dusty, who is wearing a cowboy outfit with red, yellow, and pink accents.

To modern eyes, this is surprising. 鈥淧ink is a girls鈥� color,鈥� we think. This association has become so firmly entrenched in our cultural imagination that people are flabbergasted to learn that until the 1950s, pink was often considered a strong color and, therefore, was聽.

But it wasn鈥檛聽only聽for boys. Although gender segregation is聽de rigeur聽today, it wasn鈥檛 back then.聽Look at the lower image to the left of outfits for boys and girls, also from the 1955 Sears catalog: There are brown and red outfits聽for boys and girls.聽Pink and blue outfits聽for boys and girls. Blue and green outfits聽for boys and girls.

These spreads make it clear that in the 1950s, when聽Woody鈥檚 Roundup聽is supposed to have originated, Woody would have been pretty darned stylish in pink.

A decade later, things had started changing; pink was more closely associated with girls. (As Dr. Sweet notes of the Sears catalogs in her collection, 鈥淚 didn鈥檛 find anything similar in 1965.鈥�)

In today鈥檚 marketplace, I believe parents would love to see options like these. In fact, just yesterday, one of my friends posted this to Facebook about his failed shopping trip:

Alright, parents, I went to buy my daughter cool costume stuff like pirate stuff and cowgirl stuff and all I found was princess outfits. She doesn鈥檛 know the word 鈥榩rincess鈥�. She knows the words 鈥榗owgirl鈥� and 鈥榩irate鈥�. What鈥檚 the deal? Why does every company want her to be a princess? Why can鈥檛 she be an awesome cowgirl pirate?

Sadly, the reason is that in the retail world, this kind of diversity just doesn鈥檛 fly anymore. The status quo is segregation; as Sweet has聽, 鈥渇inding a toy that is not marketed either explicitly or subtly (through use of color, for example) by gender has become incredibly difficult.鈥� And the more entrenched this practice becomes, the harder it becomes to change, as change is perceived by marketers and retailers as a risk.

Therefore, for the foreseeable future,聽pink will serve as a clear delineation in the marketplace: If something is pink, it is most definitely聽not聽for boys, who regard it as a contagion 鈥� something to be avoided at all costs.

So it is that if Woody wore pink today, he would be unintelligible in the marketplace. And so it is that my friend can鈥檛 find a good cowgirl outfit for his little girl: he鈥檇 have to travel back to 1955 to do so.

The push for 鈥済irly鈥� to be synonymous with 鈥減ink鈥� saddens me. It has caused girls鈥� worlds to shrink, and it only reinforces for boys the idea that they should actively avoid anything girlish. Monochromatic girlhood drives a wedge between boys and girls 鈥� separating their spheres during a time when cross-sex play is healthy and desirable, and when their imaginations should run free.

Instead, we鈥檙e limiting our kids. It鈥檚 infuriating.

海角大神 has assembled a diverse group of the best family and parenting bloggers out there. Our contributing and guest bloggers are not employed or directed by the Monitor, and the views expressed are the bloggers' own, as is responsibility for the content of their blogs. Rebecca Hains blogs at聽