Pink used to be for boys and blue for girls.
In this article is a picture of Franklin Delano Roosevelt aged 2.5 and now you would say dressed as a girl. I can’t get his permission to post it here.
Hugs, Ellen
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-...-pink-1370097/
Interesting article.
Thanks for sharing.
When my wife and I shop for clothes for our grandchildren, I get frustrated at the strong binary selection.
Reasonable gender neutral alternatives just don't seem to exist.
The ages quoted in the article for when children notice that there are 2 distinct genders, and when they realize that your stuck with the one that you have, match well to my best recollection of when I realized that there were physical differences between boys and girls, and when I realized I was not going to be allowed to wear the pretty stuff....ever.
Yes very interesting article. It’s just amazing that now there are some who are so concerned if a boy even thinks about
dressing like a girl as to how much harm it would do to him and yet here is evidence that one of our greatest presidents
could easily pass as one today. Just goes to show more eviedance gender and sex are seperate things.
Back in the late 19th century PINK was considered a MAN'S color--a shade of red.----So it was not strange in the early 20th century to suggest it as a color for boys.
My dad was born in the mid 1920's and I've seen pictures of him with his hair in ringlet curls down to his waist and wearing dresses when he was preschool age. I think that made him more permissive/understanding with me.
I find that article a bit hard to swallow.
It has bee raised before but times and presentation are constantly changing.
I just go with the flow.
More pants and less dresses these days.
Work on your elegance,
and beauty will follow.
It was considered normal for boys to be dressed like that for practical reasons (though perhaps not as fancy as FDR was.) It was easier to change a diaper in a dress, and little kids wore hand-me-downs because clothing was so expensive (and often hand made.) People couldn't afford to throw out and replace clothing for their future children. Haircuts also cost money. Kids were also seldom separated from their mothers until they went to school (or work), so there wasn't as much peer pressure to conform.
I've read article concerning this topic many times and going back many years. FDR, whose family had status, of course wore finer clothes than the ruffian. This all has to do with social norms back then, not now. If a baby, toddler, young boy is treated uniformly by society there should not be any negative connotations about the clothes. I've read many times the blue vs pink. Obviously, at least to me, there is more to cross dressing than "just the clothes."
My favorite color has always been light blue. I wonder what that means. Past life influence?
I think what we are missing here from this article is that there has been an entire societal shift when it comes to how people think of how we dress. If that picture of FDR or any other child of that era was to be presented as the norm for today’s young boys there would be such a major uproar from many who would say oh that poor child oh what are those parents doing. They would say he will be gay or whatever.
So what I’m saying from the past we never saw this because clothes were just clothes it didn’t matter. I just hope that
our society will once again come around to realize we are all different and uneque, we all bleed red no matter our gender
or whatever
Always good to check more than one source, when doubting the story
https://fdrlibrary.org/fdr-photos
But this shows it is FDR and other pictures, showing no pants until 1889, age 7
That was common back then to dress little boys in girls clothing. https://www.stuffmomnevertoldyou.com...re-dresses.htm
https://www.heraldbulletin.com/commu...b21696573.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_(boys)
It was dressing boys in boy's dresses, but now we consider only girls wear dresses. Thanks for the additional supporting links.
Posting Permissions
