While reading Jazmine Hughes’s article “Seeing Salmon: A Crusade Against the Nantucket Reds”, I found myself becoming increasingly frustrated. I know her article was written in fun, but I found that it raised some really interesting and challenging gender issues. I don’t disagree with Jazmine – I find those pants both over popular and socially conformist. And she does correctly classify Nantucket Red pants as pink.
But, to echo Adam Miller, why can’t men wear pink? Why should a color they choose to wear make them girly? And further, why should it matter if they’re “girly”?
In an age of increasing individual freedoms, I think that gender issues are some of the heaviest influences on our lives. Many of us fail to attain a true sense of identity because we feel the need to properly identify with our manly or womanly parts and the roles those parts have traditionally played in the structure of life.
Though men and women often find themselves to be equal on both physical and intellectual playing fields we continue to maintain gender norms, especially concerning color and clothing.
Men wear navy blue, black, grey and red. Women wear powder blue, purple, and pink.
But there seems to be no logic behind these associations.
Why is pink associated with women? I cannot think of a single reason other than “it just is.” That was the form of life.
Everyone knew that women wore pink and men did not.
Yet our culture places immense emphasis on individuality and creativity. We are kicking form out of everyday life. Why not toss out hard and fast gender taboos as well?
Associations like this only perpetuate prejudice across the board – they continue our history of associative thinking which has led to thoroughly repugnant discrimination.
So go ahead, wear your pink pants. Maybe even go the extra mile and wear a pastel pink t-shirt with Valentine’s hearts on it.
I won’t think you’re girly. I’ll think you’re wearing what you like, which is a beautiful thing.
Sincerely,
Courtney Townsend
