American studies professor Jo Paoletti’s book, Pink and Blue

Although today it might seem normal to buy a 3-year-old boy a pair of pants, a more appropriate choice at the turn of the 20th century would have been a dress — in pink, white or blue, depending on the parents’ preference — according to a university professor’s new book on the relationship between gender and clothing.

American Studies Associate Professor Jo Paoletti’s book, Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America, — released Jan. 16 — explores gendered trends in children’s clothing from the 1880s to the present.

She said she focused on trends in young children because at an early age, people start receiving messages about what is and is not socially acceptable for either gender to do, say and wear. These messages, she said, can negatively impact how society views gender and how children identify themselves as they grow up.

“I’m focusing in on children under 7 because I really wanted to just look at when gender identity was being formed and when it’s first being expressed by the child,” she said.

In Pink and Blue, Paoletti debunks common myths about the color pink. She said although many disagree about whether pink was originally reserved for boys before it became a socially-mandated girly color, the color was in fact more commonly worn by boys than blue in some parts of the country.

But, she said, pink never was something boys had to wear, like it is today for baby girls.

“It didn’t have the weight of practically natural law that it does now,” she said. “It used to be just not a rule. It was a matter of fashion, taste.”

The book also explores the way adults today are uncomfortable when they cannot quickly identify the gender of a child, and how pink and blue outfits are used in part to ease social anxiety about gender ambiguity.

Paoletti found this was not always the case — both boys and girls wore dresses, pink was an acceptable color for boys, and parents even dressed children in unisex clothing in the 1970s.

“One hundred years ago, people were quite comfortable with the idea of baby clothing being ambiguous. Baby clothing gave no hint to the sex of the child,” Paoletti said. “And now there’s this real expectation that you should be able to tell the boy from the girl.”

Sociology professor Melissa Milkie said she’s also noticed the trend.

“It’s really hard for adults to interact with a baby without knowing its gender,” Milkie said. “They feel uncomfortable without a categorization.”

Junior theater performance major Erica Philpot said she thinks society often expects to easily identify a baby’s gender because it is a quick means of classification. However, she said, that can inhibit how children express their gender.

“It kind of just boxes people in and automatically puts the label on them,” Philpot said. “Sometimes society is just quick to put people in categories because it’s easier.”

Paoletti and Milkie said enforcing strict gender roles can limit a child’s self-expression, although they are ultimately not likely to conform to society’s standards.

“What we attach to these categories is a lot of expectations. It would be seen as a negative to have these strict categorizations,” Milkie said. “There’s nothing natural about these meanings. It shows the fluidity of these what we think are really important meanings are somewhat arbitrary.”

Paoletti said she hopes her book helps people look past these quick labels and be more skeptical about gender being a strict rule rather than just a label developed by society.

“I think my goal in general, just in teaching American studies, is just to get people to think more critically about things they take for granted,” Paoletti said.

“Sex is much more complicated than pink or blue.”

kelley@umdbk.com