Franklin D Roosevelt 1885
In November, Celine Dion and a clothing line called Nununu partnered and realized a gender-neutral clothing line called “Celinununu”.
Nununu is kind of a weirdo brand to some, but as a woman who is a longtime AFI fangirl and whose wardrobe is mostly shades of black and grey, I appreciate that it’s not your standard kidswear. If I were wealthy, my child would probably own a few pieces, particularly this cute skull top.
Unbeknownst to me, gender-neutral clothing with “1984” vibes is a sign of the coming apocalypse and Celine is one of the Four Horse…persons?
This quote from the website seems to sum up what people take issue with: “(Nununu) Liberates children from the traditional roles of boy/girl, and enables younger people to grow on values of equality with the freedom to strengthen their own power of personality based on mutual respect.”
Ernest Hemingway and his Sister Marcelline in 1901
That’s not new (sorry Nununu), that’s old school. As in, genderless children’s clothing is historically accurate. Where did pink and blue come from? Until the early 1900s, boys wore dresses and had long hair until well into childhood – 6 or 7 years old. The picture at the top of this blog is President Franklin D Roosevelt… in a dress. In 1884, this outfit was considered gender neutral for a young child, because boys and girls dressed exactly alike.
Up until the 1940s, we dressed boys in pink, as it was considered to be a “stronger color”.
In other words, until very recently, boys and girls pretty much looked the same through early childhood. They were gender neutral.
The comments on the company’s social media are a disturbing cornucopia of ignorance and fear-mongering, far more upsetting than a child wearing clothing that doesn’t loudly proclaim their gender. Is there a reason our children’s clothing needs to sexualize them into one box or the other? Am I missing something?
President Gerald R Ford in 1914
Laura Ingraham and Raymond Arroyo of Fox News had some lovely, totally sane and reasonable things to say, such as “Unless you’re a member of the Addams Family or a satanic cult, why would you dress your infant in this?…It’s bizarre.” from Arroyo, and Ingram, ever the open-minded lady, added “Why would you put skulls on babies? Planned Parenthood!“. Feel free to watch the clip here. Arroyo also claimed that one of the monster toys shown in the add was a voodoo doll. He’s an idiot, that’s a monster, not a voodoo doll. This is called “fear-mongering” and it’s awful.
I can see how someone would find this aesthetic uncomfortable. It’s okay if you really don’t like it, but here’s where being a mature adult comes in – There’s a huge difference between “I really don’t like this, it makes me uncomfortable” and “ITS SATAN Y’ALL!” When you scream that everything you don’t like is Satan or Demonic, you seem like complete looney toons and discredit yourself (and possibly the church/political movement you loudly claim to be a part of).
Generally, even if you put a child in something gender neutral, eventually they’ll gravitate towards their biological gender. I never put my daughter in pink sparkly stuff (unless it was a gift) as a small child. She usually wore a lot of boy’s clothes because they had dinosaurs. Of her own choices, she’s currently wearing a light up sparkly princess something. Some boys like glittery and sparkly things and that’s okay, they’re still boys.
President Harry Truman in 1884
We take a huge step backward as Christians and conservatives when we claim that we don’t support transgenderism and then try and force our children into the very modern and rigid gender ideals of pink and blue. So let me break it down: Either we teach our children that they can be/do whatever and it doesn’t change their gender, or we confuse them and teach them that their interests dictate their gender, and have them suppress their natural personalities and interests trying to fit into this post WWII idealism that mostly existed in print ads and cellulose, until possibly someone comes along and tells them they can be themselves, but hey, it means they’re trans. Pick one.
Dwight D Eisenhower in 1893 (Bottom right)
Why do I have to explain this in 2018? It’s frustrating. When did having historically ignorant ideas about culture and clothing, then offending everyone you possibly can become a tenant of the Christian faith?
Putting your children in gender-neutral clothing is not demonic. Exposing your children to whimsical art that others find uncomfortable (so long as it’s not violent or pornographic) isn’t wrong. Being weird isn’t evil. The Addam’s Family was a picture of a functional and beautifully weird family who loved and supported each other with parents deeply in love and respectful of one another. Boys who want to stay at home and raise babies are still boys, mommies who work full time and don’t wear dresses are still girls. Skulls aren’t demonic and weird, you have one in your head RIGHT NOW. Spooky. Doot Doot.
For now, brothers and sisters, if you could just lay off the hysteria that turns people away from Christ and any form of conservatism, that would be great. Kid’s clothing in black and white isn’t worth reaffirming someones idea that Christians are ignorant and hyperbolic people who claim anything they don’t like is demonic. Thank you.
Franklin D Roosevelt, 1885.