Rant: sexism on baby products

[Anonymous]

I'm actually not having a problem with the gender neutral stuff, but girl-specific stuff that isn't pink isn't easy. I love pink, but don't want my newborn drowning in it. Boys clothes seem to come in red, blue, green, orange. For baby girls you get pink or purple unless you look really hard. Gender neutral is very easy in my book. Interesting how we all have different perceptions of the same "reality".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get this. The only issue we had was bedding.

Do you guys think Red means girls and green means boys? I'm so confused. And yes I only registered at BRU & BBB.

I think a big part of the issue is it's just so overwhelming, especially as a first time Mom, and it's just hard to find/see the gender neutral stuff through the onslaught of uber-gendered clothes.

And like a PP, I personally also find it frustrating how limited the over all supply is - it seems to be super-girly-pink, super-boyish-sports/trucks, with s mattering of green/yellow neutral stuff. I have a DD and don't mind having her look like a girl, but I'd love it if her clothes were less pink dominated - but I don't want to dress her exclusively in cream/browns, and the other colors are just really hard to find for girls clothes.

And honestly? While I'd LOVE to dress her in a greater variety of colors, I'm simply too tired/lazy/cheap to go out of my way to find them or to pay big $$ at the high end boutiques that carry them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how this is sexism . . .

It's not, but I think we get what the OP was trying to say. Too much gender-specific stuff out there, not enough neutral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get this. The only issue we had was bedding.

Do you guys think Red means girls and green means boys? I'm so confused. And yes I only registered at BRU & BBB.

I think a big part of the issue is it's just so overwhelming, especially as a first time Mom, and it's just hard to find/see the gender neutral stuff through the onslaught of uber-gendered clothes.

And like a PP, I personally also find it frustrating how limited the over all supply is - it seems to be super-girly-pink, super-boyish-sports/trucks, with s mattering of green/yellow neutral stuff. I have a DD and don't mind having her look like a girl, but I'd love it if her clothes were less pink dominated - but I don't want to dress her exclusively in cream/browns, and the other colors are just really hard to find for girls clothes.

And honestly? While I'd LOVE to dress her in a greater variety of colors, I'm simply too tired/lazy/cheap to go out of my way to find them or to pay big $$ at the high end boutiques that carry them.

But I don't think OP was talking about clothes - there I agree with you. But PNP, Swings, strollers, car seats - there's plenty of neutral stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how this is sexism . . .

It's not, but I think we get what the OP was trying to say. Too much gender-specific stuff out there, not enough neutral.

Well, I think gender-stereotyping is sexist...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how this is sexism . . .

It's not, but I think we get what the OP was trying to say. Too much gender-specific stuff out there, not enough neutral.

Really? Isn't this exactly what sexism is? Making judgments based on someone's sex and nothing else? A boy baby and a girl baby born on the same day, and when you go shopping for these little newborn blank slates, almost everything for the boy has trucks, trains, sports logos, etc., and almost everything for the girl has pink, lace, princesses, butterflies... That sends a strong message to the child (eventually, when the child notices) and to everyone around the child. "Look at my rough and tumble little boy! He'll be into trucks and trains soon! He'll like stuff that's strong and fast! He'll be really into sports!" vs. "Look at my sweet and delicate little girl! She'll be into princesses and butterflies and pink things. She should be surrounded by soft colors and gentle images."

Where does that leave boys who like butterflies and girls who like trucks? I say this as a mother of a 3yo daughter who, I swear, in this day and age, gets sketchy comments for how much she likes trains and trucks, and for not knowing the names of all the Disney princesses -- so I think about this stuff a lot. It's not only how super-gendered stuff affects the child directly -- it's also what it signals to everybody around the child, and how it tells us to treat kids differently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how this is sexism . . .

It's not, but I think we get what the OP was trying to say. Too much gender-specific stuff out there, not enough neutral.

Really? Isn't this exactly what sexism is? Making judgments based on someone's sex and nothing else? A boy baby and a girl baby born on the same day, and when you go shopping for these little newborn blank slates, almost everything for the boy has trucks, trains, sports logos, etc., and almost everything for the girl has pink, lace, princesses, butterflies... That sends a strong message to the child (eventually, when the child notices) and to everyone around the child. "Look at my rough and tumble little boy! He'll be into trucks and trains soon! He'll like stuff that's strong and fast! He'll be really into sports!" vs. "Look at my sweet and delicate little girl! She'll be into princesses and butterflies and pink things. She should be surrounded by soft colors and gentle images."

Where does that leave boys who like butterflies and girls who like trucks? I say this as a mother of a 3yo daughter who, I swear, in this day and age, gets sketchy comments for how much she likes trains and trucks, and for not knowing the names of all the Disney princesses -- so I think about this stuff a lot. It's not only how super-gendered stuff affects the child directly -- it's also what it signals to everybody around the child, and how it tells us to treat kids differently.

I take it you're having a really hard time dealing with this. I have a 3 year old boy who enjoys making cookies and playing with a doll house, and bringing blankies to his little brother. But I don't believe that there is a vast conspiracy aimed at shaping him into a butterfly hating, cleat wearing, hoop shooting maniac. Blue jeans don't tell you much about his preferred activities. Neither do striped shirts. They do, by virtue of being predominantly "boy" or "girl" in color, tell you his sex, but I am okay with that as I'm not running that wacky experiment (was it Swedish parents?) of not disclosing my child's sex. Colors have long been used symbolically - certain colors reserved to signify certain things, and in this country it's boys are blue, girls are pink. I don't think this is intended to force female children into submission or propel male children into dominance.

As a little girl, I wore a lot of jeans and brown pants and shirts of all sorts of colors. I was not scarred by the experience. I don't think the blue/pink matter is a societal effort to suppress one or the other of the sexes. I agree it is annoying to have to look a bit harder for clothes that "fit" your child's personality, but I can't call it sexism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I take it you're having a really hard time dealing with this. I have a 3 year old boy who enjoys making cookies and playing with a doll house, and bringing blankies to his little brother. But I don't believe that there is a vast conspiracy aimed at shaping him into a butterfly hating, cleat wearing, hoop shooting maniac. Blue jeans don't tell you much about his preferred activities. Neither do striped shirts. They do, by virtue of being predominantly "boy" or "girl" in color, tell you his sex, but I am okay with that as I'm not running that wacky experiment (was it Swedish parents?) of not disclosing my child's sex. Colors have long been used symbolically - certain colors reserved to signify certain things, and in this country it's boys are blue, girls are pink. I don't think this is intended to force female children into submission or propel male children into dominance.

As a little girl, I wore a lot of jeans and brown pants and shirts of all sorts of colors. I was not scarred by the experience. I don't think the blue/pink matter is a societal effort to suppress one or the other of the sexes. I agree it is annoying to have to look a bit harder for clothes that "fit" your child's personality, but I can't call it sexism.

I'm the PP you sort of sound like you're smacking down (is that on purpose? If not, you might rethink your tone.) No, I'm not having a "really hard time dealing with this." I do find it thought-provoking. The colors blue and pink, independent of anything else, aren't my main concern, except for the way that they announce immediately that there's this gender dichotomy and encourage us all to focus on it literally from the moment we dress our newborns. More concerning to me is the way things designated for baby boys are vibrant primary colors and tend to feature sports, car/truck/train themes, while things designated for baby girls are soft pastels and feature princesses and flowers. People tend to say, well, my girl LIKES princesses -- but I'm talking about baby stuff, and no baby likes princesses or trucks or anything else. If your 5 year old girl is into pink princesses and flowers, fine -- but how do you think she got that way? If your 5-year-old boy is a rough and tumble sports kid who loves trucks, fine -- but how do you think he got that way?

I wouldn't go so far as to argue there are NO inherent differences between the sexes, definitely not -- but I think we push kids into gender roles pretty intensely -- not in a purposeful "conspiracy" way but one that's so ingrained we hardly notice it -- and I think doing so constraints the full expression/development of either little girls or boys. That, to me, is a major facet of sexism.

[Anonymous]

I didn't find out the gender of my baby and I had no problem finding gender neutral stuff, swing, bouncy seat, pack n play, crib set, clothes. I thought the selection was good.

I did an online registry at wishlist.com so I could pull stuff from various sites to one list, it works out well for computer savy people, you may have to have someone help out the older crowd that will be buying you gifts, my SIL had to help out my MIL/FIL.

FWIW we went with a safari theme to the nursery, painted the room a tan/coffee color and had a nice crib set that was embroidered with safari landscape with flowers and trees and animals. I was sooo happy that we didn't find out because our shower we got lots of gender neutral things that we can use for the next baby and we were not over run with blue or pink everything.

[Anonymous]

I'm the PP you sort of sound like you're smacking down (is that on purpose? If not, you might rethink your tone.) No, I'm not having a "really hard time dealing with this." I do find it thought-provoking. The colors blue and pink, independent of anything else, aren't my main concern, except for the way that they announce immediately that there's this gender dichotomy and encourage us all to focus on it literally from the moment we dress our newborns. More concerning to me is the way things designated for baby boys are vibrant primary colors and tend to feature sports, car/truck/train themes, while things designated for baby girls are soft pastels and feature princesses and flowers. People tend to say, well, my girl LIKES princesses -- but I'm talking about baby stuff, and no baby likes princesses or trucks or anything else. If your 5 year old girl is into pink princesses and flowers, fine -- but how do you think she got that way? If your 5-year-old boy is a rough and tumble sports kid who loves trucks, fine -- but how do you think he got that way?

I wouldn't go so far as to argue there are NO inherent differences between the sexes, definitely not -- but I think we push kids into gender roles pretty intensely -- not in a purposeful "conspiracy" way but one that's so ingrained we hardly notice it -- and I think doing so constraints the full expression/development of either little girls or boys. That, to me, is a major facet of sexism.

Amen, sister! I agree 100%. I have two sons, and in the infant stage you can usually find something cute and not too gendered, but for my two year old I am buying him shirts and pants from the same table at Target, plain t-shirts and polos in neutral colors, jeans and khakis and elastic waist pants. They are still clearly intended for boys but at least they aren't so freaking BUTCH with trucks and sports crap all over them, not to mention the camouflage. I hate that s**t. but I guess other parents must like it or they wouldn't make it. We do allow some gendered pics on the pajamas based on his stated likes (fire trucks and dinosaurs) but I know the fact he likes those things is itself gendered. There is no escaping it ultimately but no way in hell is my kid wearing something that says "Daddy's Little Hero" or "Chicks Dig Scars" or any of the many other incredibly tacky phrases they put on kids' clothes.

To OP's original query: we didn't have a hard time with gear, bedding, or even clothes for a newborn. There's a smaller selection, but the neutral stuff is there.

[Anonymous]

I LOVE H&M baby clothes. They have some really darling things. Some of the other big chains (Gymboree, Baby Gap, Hanna Andersson) will also have some neutral-colored and styled infant clothes.

I think the clothes and the bedding are the most difficult - most of the other "gear" comes in so many colors and patterns you can find something suitable. Buy Buy Baby will have more bedding options than BRU; Pottery Barn also has some cute things although most are boy/girl specific but they always have 1-2 active lines that are neutral.

[Anonymous]

so sad I clicked on this annoying thread. boys and girls are different. men and women are different. it is not marketing, it is genetic and evolutionary. it is not sexist. go to a playground and watch 25 3 year old boys compared to 25 3 year old girls.

[Anonymous]

I didn't / don't find it difficult finding things gender neutral. And, don't see what the big deal is anyway. But, I guess I am in the minority on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:so sad I clicked on this annoying thread. boys and girls are different. men and women are different. it is not marketing, it is genetic and evolutionary. it is not sexist. go to a playground and watch 25 3 year old boys compared to 25 3 year old girls.

Yes boys and girls are different - but not innately as different as culture leads them to be.

For anyone interested in this topic, I highly recommend the new book "Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps—And What We Can Do About It" It's a very interesting review of the actual science looking at gender differences in the brain, and shows that their is actually far less *built in* difference then we are often led to believe.

[Anonymous]

testosterone / estrogen