Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Color Confusion

If you know me, and most of you do, you know that there are things I don't prefer.

I don't prefer Harry Potter. I don't have anything against him, or Rowling, it's just not what I choose to read.

I don't prefer Twilight. I have quite a few things against that series, not the least of which is I think it is poor writing, not to mention how creepy Edward is. I prefer traditional vampires.

While we're on the subject of heart-throbs, I don't find Johnny Depp attractive at all. Nor am I attracted to Orlando Bloom. I'm also not attracted to any of the Jonas Brothers, Christian Bale, the late Heath Ledger, Zac Efron, I could go on but I think you get the idea.

I really really really don't like Miley Cyrus and Taylor Swift.

It took me a long time to like the latest Star Trek movie. I finally saw it on accident when I walked into the livingroom to find my dad watching it. Honestly, I was sucked in before I realized what it was. Admittedly, I enjoyed it.

If I were to continue this tangent, you'd get bored and stop reading, so let's take it from here. If you review all of these do-not-prefer's and dislikes, you'll find that they all have one thing in common: they're everywhere.

I don't know if I dislike them because they're popular, or if because they're popular it was easier to discover that I dislike them, but I just assume that I'm a non-conformist by nature (here is where Mom makes her "non-conformists are all alike" comment).

All of this is leading up to a fact that will come as absolutely no surprise to you. I don't prefer pink. To say I dislike it would be false. I don't mind pink, I'll wear pink, and in fact I own a fair amount of pink things. I also own a fair amount of blue, purple, orange, red, black, brown....

Being a college student and therefore, of course, much more informed than the rest of the world, I disapprove of assigning colors to a gender. Having said this, there is entirely too much pastel pink in the world.

As I was walking through Target on Tuesday, pram-shaped gift card clutched in my hot little hand, I found three of the most adorable newborn outfits. Each was a tunic/legging set, the first a mauve butterfly pattern with brown leggings, the second a light blue with bright striped leggings, and the third a white flowered with turquoise leggings. I was so excited about the last outfit, I washed it that night and dressed Emma in it yesterday. I didn't manage to bring out my camera, but here is a picture of the outfit.
The picture does not really do it justice. The colors are much brighter. Now, it's not pink. But I think we can all agree that it is quite feminine. Even so, three times today I was asked, "How old is he?" He? I thought to myself? Maybe it's just a tongue slip. So I'd casually say "she," which all three times received the response, "Oh, I assumed it was a boy."


Now, an infant looks pretty gender ambiguous. Naturally, a person will assume the sex of the baby by what he or she is wearing. One of the three people said, "Well, I didn't see any pink."

Why is it that girls must wear pink and boys wear blue? It's not even blue. It's turquoise. Did they not see the flowers? (Not that it's relevant to the situation, but why must girls like flowers and boys like dinosaurs? That's just messed up.)

So people are unobservant and assume boy when they see no pink. I don't prefer those people.

1 comment:

  1. personally, i would never dress my baby boy in that, and i think those people are very confused if they thought she was a boy in that.