What do you think?
Rate this book
Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America
Jo B. Paoletti's journey through the history of children's clothing began when she posed the question, "When did we start dressing girls in pink and boys in blue?" To uncover the answer, she looks at advertising, catalogs, dolls, baby books, mommy blogs and discussion forums, and other popular media to examine the surprising shifts in attitudes toward color as a mark of gender in American children's clothing. She chronicles the decline of the white dress for both boys and girls, the introduction of rompers in the early 20th century, the gendering of pink and blue, the resurgence of unisex fashions, and the origins of today's highly gender-specific baby and toddler clothing.
192 pages, Hardcover
First published February 6, 2012
34 people are currently reading
1172 people want to read
About the author
Jo B. Paoletti
2 books29 followersMy interest in the history of dress began in childhood, as I turned the pages of the illustrations in volume D (for Dress) in our World Book. Clothing has always seemed like the perfect window into the real lives of the past; studying what people wore gives us an intimate look into everyday life. For the last thirty years, I have been focusing on how our clothing conveys our gender, especially for children.
I taught at the University of Maryland from 1976 to 2017, first in the textiles department and later in American studies. In retirement, I have continued writing, with several projects going at once. In my "spare time", I enjoy knitting, train travel and reading -- sometimes all at the same time!
I taught at the University of Maryland from 1976 to 2017, first in the textiles department and later in American studies. In retirement, I have continued writing, with several projects going at once. In my "spare time", I enjoy knitting, train travel and reading -- sometimes all at the same time!
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
September 21, 2014
Hello, my name is Deborah and I read way too many books at once. But a lot of them are things I'm reading with my sonny (a little every night) or only in the bathroom or right before bed; or else they're the kind of thing it's hard to make a dent in (hello, Leviathan -- I'm halfway through you, pal!).
This is my sitting-at-the-kitchen-table read. It's interesting and thought-provoking. For instance:
"It's not unusual to hear modern people describe Victorian babies as being dressed like girls; this is an error. To its own parents and grandparents, a child wearing the traditional white dress looked like 'a baby.' This convention could be explained in practical terms of diapering, hand-me-downs, and laundering, but that is a partial truth. An equally important explanation is that gendered dress was considered inappropriate for young children, whose asexual innocence was so often cited as one of their greatest charms."
--Just finished! What a great book. I loved the historical information -- did you know that the word "pink" wasn't used to describe a color until the 1840s? And here's an amazing quote from a 1918 article:
"Pink or Blue? Which is intended for boys and which for girls? This question comes from one of our readers this month, and the discussion may be of interest to others. There has been a great diversity of opinion on this subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."
(Paoletti doesn't say, but I wonder if this has to do with the color pink's origin story. Clothing-wise, for a long time it was simply red fabric that had been washed a lot, rather than a delicate tint all its own.)
I also very much enjoyed the more recent "historical" anecdotes, such as Paoletti's middle school teacher telling her 1963 home ec class that girls' clothes should have zippers in the side or back. "Women don't need front flies," she declared.
Whether your interest is in sociology, feminism, or costume history, you'll enjoy this lively, readable book.
This is my sitting-at-the-kitchen-table read. It's interesting and thought-provoking. For instance:
"It's not unusual to hear modern people describe Victorian babies as being dressed like girls; this is an error. To its own parents and grandparents, a child wearing the traditional white dress looked like 'a baby.' This convention could be explained in practical terms of diapering, hand-me-downs, and laundering, but that is a partial truth. An equally important explanation is that gendered dress was considered inappropriate for young children, whose asexual innocence was so often cited as one of their greatest charms."
--Just finished! What a great book. I loved the historical information -- did you know that the word "pink" wasn't used to describe a color until the 1840s? And here's an amazing quote from a 1918 article:
"Pink or Blue? Which is intended for boys and which for girls? This question comes from one of our readers this month, and the discussion may be of interest to others. There has been a great diversity of opinion on this subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."
(Paoletti doesn't say, but I wonder if this has to do with the color pink's origin story. Clothing-wise, for a long time it was simply red fabric that had been washed a lot, rather than a delicate tint all its own.)
I also very much enjoyed the more recent "historical" anecdotes, such as Paoletti's middle school teacher telling her 1963 home ec class that girls' clothes should have zippers in the side or back. "Women don't need front flies," she declared.
Whether your interest is in sociology, feminism, or costume history, you'll enjoy this lively, readable book.
July 3, 2013
I thoroughly enjoyed this thought-provoking book. Gender issues have always interested me and I highly recommend it to anyone with that same interest and/or an interest in design or fashion. I wish the whole pink vs blue phenomenon hadn't come to pass and that all babies could wear white and all kids a bright rainbow of color to express their every whim.
June 25, 2012
Totally fascinating. A detailed history of children's clothes. It's about way more than the colors pink and blue. It's an interesting glimpse into how our culture affects how we dress. It also turns the whole idea of a "traditional" way of doing things on its head. That is, unless everyone wants to go back to dressing baby boys in long white dresses.
September 13, 2012
you kind of have to get over a lot of hurdles to get into this book. first, there's the super-academic way it is written. that's going to be off-putting for a lot of casual readers. even i had a tough time with it & i don't mind reading academic books on topics that interest me. then there's the constant explaining & apologizing for the academic tone. paoletti mostly gets it out of her system in the introduction (which is LONG) & then just dives into the topic at hand for the rest of the book, but the introduction is TOUGH. it's like the book equivalent of trying to qualify for the boston marathon. it will definitely sort the devoted readers from the sunday morning looky-loos. i just don't know if that's a good thing. & then there is the kind of ugly graphic design. the more i looked at the cover, the uglier i thought it was. you'd never guess this book was published in 2012 just by looking at it. it looks straight outta 1993.
BUT once you get past all that, it's not bad at all. it's a historical & sociological examination of how children's clothing came to be gendered, & how it came to be gendered in such a specific way. i was already familiar with the fact that fewer than one hundred years ago, it was not at all uncommon for people to associate pink with boys & blue with girls (because pink was associated with red, which was considered a more vibrant, boyish color). but there were a lot of other interesting factoids in this book too, such as the fact that it would be anathema one hundred years ago for someone to suggest that an infant appeared particularly masculine or feminine, because babies were seen as asexual cherubs & descriptors like that accorded them a sexuality that parents did not appreciate. a far cry from the situation we've got going on today, where the grandmother of one baby in my acquaintance said, "you can just tell he's a boy! he's so masculine-looking!" the baby was three months old at the time. trust that he looked no different from any other baby. it's not like he had a beard or anything.
for me, interest really picked up as the book went on, because i am more interested in the more contemporary trends in gendered kid clothing. paoletti posits an interesting theory, that perhaps the parents that are responsible for the mega-gendered clothing explosion that started in the mid-80s & has persisted to the common day are reacting to being dressed in the more gender-neutral styles of the 60s & 70s. little girls in, say, 1974, may not have been all dolled up in pink ruffles because their parents wanted them to be "free to be...you & me," so they are responding by going fucking bananas with their own babies. i don't know if this is true at all, but it's interesting to consider. she even draws historical corollaries to the "little lord fauntleroy" craze of the 1890s & the strong feelings the young men of the 1920s (who would have been the ones all dolled up in their childhoods) had against velvet pantaloons.
i felt she got a liiiiittle too judgmental about modern-day moms that choose to find out their babies' sexes before birth, but maybe i'm just feeling defensive because i chose to find out. she kind of assumes that parents want to find out so they can start gendering their kids ASAP, which, to look at any pregnancy messageboard, would seem like the gospel truth. some of these ladies are fucking nuts, man. there's one in my due date club that has already purchased a pair of newborn-size hot pink nikes for her unborn daughter. i ask you. but that's not why i wanted to find out, & surely i'm not the only pregnant lady in the world who felt strongly about wanting to know the sex but has no intentions to overtly gender her child one way or the other? we may be in the minority, but surely we exist!
BUT once you get past all that, it's not bad at all. it's a historical & sociological examination of how children's clothing came to be gendered, & how it came to be gendered in such a specific way. i was already familiar with the fact that fewer than one hundred years ago, it was not at all uncommon for people to associate pink with boys & blue with girls (because pink was associated with red, which was considered a more vibrant, boyish color). but there were a lot of other interesting factoids in this book too, such as the fact that it would be anathema one hundred years ago for someone to suggest that an infant appeared particularly masculine or feminine, because babies were seen as asexual cherubs & descriptors like that accorded them a sexuality that parents did not appreciate. a far cry from the situation we've got going on today, where the grandmother of one baby in my acquaintance said, "you can just tell he's a boy! he's so masculine-looking!" the baby was three months old at the time. trust that he looked no different from any other baby. it's not like he had a beard or anything.
for me, interest really picked up as the book went on, because i am more interested in the more contemporary trends in gendered kid clothing. paoletti posits an interesting theory, that perhaps the parents that are responsible for the mega-gendered clothing explosion that started in the mid-80s & has persisted to the common day are reacting to being dressed in the more gender-neutral styles of the 60s & 70s. little girls in, say, 1974, may not have been all dolled up in pink ruffles because their parents wanted them to be "free to be...you & me," so they are responding by going fucking bananas with their own babies. i don't know if this is true at all, but it's interesting to consider. she even draws historical corollaries to the "little lord fauntleroy" craze of the 1890s & the strong feelings the young men of the 1920s (who would have been the ones all dolled up in their childhoods) had against velvet pantaloons.
i felt she got a liiiiittle too judgmental about modern-day moms that choose to find out their babies' sexes before birth, but maybe i'm just feeling defensive because i chose to find out. she kind of assumes that parents want to find out so they can start gendering their kids ASAP, which, to look at any pregnancy messageboard, would seem like the gospel truth. some of these ladies are fucking nuts, man. there's one in my due date club that has already purchased a pair of newborn-size hot pink nikes for her unborn daughter. i ask you. but that's not why i wanted to find out, & surely i'm not the only pregnant lady in the world who felt strongly about wanting to know the sex but has no intentions to overtly gender her child one way or the other? we may be in the minority, but surely we exist!
May 8, 2013
"Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America," by Jo B. Paoletti, is a look at infant and children clothing and how it has become more sexualized/marked by gender over the past hundred or so years as well as WHY.
I started reading "Pink and Blue" after reading several pop-science books that are really chatty, joke-y, and gossipy. I expected this slim volume to have a similar tone, but it was much more sober. It's very clearly written and easy to read and comprehend, and very engaging. Paoletti has done a huge amount of research and both her research and her writing have been very careful. (One thing I really appreciated was her effort in not just focusing on white families/kids.) "Pink and Blue" is footnoted/annotated and has what looks like an intriguing bibliography as well. Paoletti does a great job of putting in context why currently boys' clothing is covered in vehicles, sports equipment, and masculine phrases while girls' clothing is pink. She's given me quite a bit to think about.
My only real beef is that I wish there had been more pictures in the book. I guess I like photos of babies or something.
I started reading "Pink and Blue" after reading several pop-science books that are really chatty, joke-y, and gossipy. I expected this slim volume to have a similar tone, but it was much more sober. It's very clearly written and easy to read and comprehend, and very engaging. Paoletti has done a huge amount of research and both her research and her writing have been very careful. (One thing I really appreciated was her effort in not just focusing on white families/kids.) "Pink and Blue" is footnoted/annotated and has what looks like an intriguing bibliography as well. Paoletti does a great job of putting in context why currently boys' clothing is covered in vehicles, sports equipment, and masculine phrases while girls' clothing is pink. She's given me quite a bit to think about.
My only real beef is that I wish there had been more pictures in the book. I guess I like photos of babies or something.
February 13, 2012
Whether new parents; old parents; grandparents of just formally a girl or boy, "Pink and Blue" is a book that should be on your list to read; very soon. Pink and Blue is a truly great scholastic work for the everyday reader; much more than girls wear pink and boys wear blue (do you know why?).This book scans centuries of babies and the baby culture. It deals with unisex, nonsexist, homosexual and all kinds of differences in the world of babies over the first 7 years of life.Ever wonder what the affect of sexual related colors have on us as we grow up; and after? Any of you guys have the guts to dress in pink?("Tough guys were pink?")Has this simple idea of sexual color scheme affected our nation or individuality? A hundred years ago this was all reversed; so why the change? How did the 60's affect the baby culture? Jo Paoletti offers you many hours of fresh, fascinating exploration in the baby culture. Just how controlled are you over the color you wear even as adults or senior citizens? Think about and then read about it in Pink and Blue.
October 21, 2013
This was an easy read, speaking as a grad student, despite other review opinions. Paoletti explains any jargon used, writes concisely. Histories are kept brief without leaving out too much, no crazy generalizations.
The topics covered are interesting and lead up to modern day, within the past 5 years, which was great. Each cultural shift comes with good examples that I could easily visualize. The unisex clothing section reminded me of the pictures of my mom's childhood. Being born in '89 I can definitely attest to the gendered and ultra frilly change during the 1990s. Lace-edged socks, pink bike shorts, and an obsession with Disney's Pocahontas.....yep. Seeing the changes in styles as the generations begin to have kids makes me examine my friends' children. How will I dress my own children when I have them? What will the trend be at that point? Interesting food for thought.
The topics covered are interesting and lead up to modern day, within the past 5 years, which was great. Each cultural shift comes with good examples that I could easily visualize. The unisex clothing section reminded me of the pictures of my mom's childhood. Being born in '89 I can definitely attest to the gendered and ultra frilly change during the 1990s. Lace-edged socks, pink bike shorts, and an obsession with Disney's Pocahontas.....yep. Seeing the changes in styles as the generations begin to have kids makes me examine my friends' children. How will I dress my own children when I have them? What will the trend be at that point? Interesting food for thought.
May 7, 2012
A fascinating subject a bit dryly presented, Pink and Blue by Jo B. Paoletti is unapologetically academic. Most interesting was the chapter about the short-lived period in the 1960-70s when unisex clothing for young children was the norm. This brief respite from girly-girl vs. rowdy-boy was followed by an almost Cultural Revolution-style clampdown and reversion to exaggerated sex-role differentiation.
The books shows just how hard the hammer flattens anything that threatens conventional patriarchal assumptions. Read Pink and Blue and you just might be ready for your futuristic silver jumpsuit. I know I am.
The books shows just how hard the hammer flattens anything that threatens conventional patriarchal assumptions. Read Pink and Blue and you just might be ready for your futuristic silver jumpsuit. I know I am.
January 20, 2016
A remarkable achievement, given the extremely convoluted topic. The author manages to reveal several non-trivial trend connectives in fashion and gender history, and provides sharp illumination into the origins of our current attitudes about sex and gender consumerisms and where our current trends may be headed. Very well supported with endnotes and extracts from original documents.
March 31, 2018
Solid examination of how children's clothes became so gendered. Interesting and revealing. The author did a great job researching baby books, clothing catalogues, and pediatric psychology/advice media. The book is a bit repetitive. Otherwise, enlightening.
March 26, 2014
This has been sitting on my "currently reading" shelf for a year and a half. It is a very interesting topic and I enjoyed learning about gender-coded colors over time. I believe I am one chapter shy of finishing it and someday I will. But for now it is time to clean house on the "currently reading" shelf.
::
This book was mentioned in the NYT Magazine today: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/mag...
I'm enjoying the book but haven't picked it up in a while.
::
This book was mentioned in the NYT Magazine today: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/mag...
I'm enjoying the book but haven't picked it up in a while.
April 12, 2016
I find this topic interesting and would recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn why we dress girls in pink and boys in blue. Paoletti takes a generational approach to explain the shifts in fashion in the past century or so. She also discusses how advancements in other fields may have impacted these shifts. The first half is academic and dry, but once I got to the 4th chapter it was easier to read, perhaps because she had set the groundwork. It was interesting to learn the history of the pink / blue divide.
August 6, 2014
I picked this up after noticing it on my Goodreads recommendations. I agree with the previous reviewer who called it "a little dry." It is written slightly more academic than popular, which made it a bit of a challenge to get through. This would be great for anyone interested in the history of children's fashion, or gender implications of children's clothing, but didn't really catch my interest after all.
April 6, 2013
Dry, and very academic treatment of gendered children's clothing. (Also, perhaps it was my attention wandering, but after a chapter or two, it felt repetitive. More like several academic papers put together than a book.) I think this one is really only for serious students of fashion history or gender studies.
January 19, 2013
I was excited to read this but then...it turned out to be a little dry. I think the subject was very interesting but was written in a technical manner. I think I was hoping for more anecdotes, etc. What teased me into finishing the book was the few times that the author allowed her personal fascination and warmth for the subject to shine through.
September 1, 2014
Well researched, and informative. The problems with the book stem from a reliance on the outdated theories of Veblen and Simmel, whose fashion theories have been insufficient since the Industrial Revolution. Provides an especially enjoyable breakdown of the evolution of children's clothing from the early nineteenth century to the mid-twentieth.
Want to read
November 12, 2011Smithsonian magazine
Read
January 26, 2016Given a big thumbs up at the national NOW conference - the Cinderella Ate My Daughter of 2012 is how they described it.
Read
November 26, 2012Recommended by Mary Anne Case.
August 17, 2013
Don't bother with the first four chapters.
April 16, 2013
This was very very dull. I hated it.
October 18, 2013
A fascinating topic with solid research and interesting points but too dryly presented.
February 10, 2024
I am so glad I finally got to read this book. Paoletti takes us from the time where all babies wore white to the wild sixties to the strictly gendering clothing of the mid-1980s. The flip-flops and developments are well explained, including a 1918 trade article asking, “Pink or Blue? Which is intended for boys and which for girls? This question comes from one of our readers this month, and the discussion may be of interest to others. There has been a great diversity of opinion on this subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."
At the end, she talks about "pink fatigue" and the literature even in advice for raising boys: “We want our boys to have access to the emotional and social freedom girls enjoy. We want them to feel less pressure to be strong and in charge. We’d like them to feel more comfortable with their vulnerabilities.”
As she notes, the clothing we choose for our children is less about them and more about telling people how to treat them--and that has consequences.
At the end, she talks about "pink fatigue" and the literature even in advice for raising boys: “We want our boys to have access to the emotional and social freedom girls enjoy. We want them to feel less pressure to be strong and in charge. We’d like them to feel more comfortable with their vulnerabilities.”
As she notes, the clothing we choose for our children is less about them and more about telling people how to treat them--and that has consequences.
February 7, 2020
Well-researched history in which the author traced the evolution of clothing colors and styles for babies and children by researching old baby announcements, clothing advertisements, story books and paper dolls from mid-1800s to present day. During this time, the preferred colors for babies and children evolved from mostly white cotton (as it was easy to tell when dirty, and could be bleached back to snowy whiteness) in the early 1900s to assorted pastels and then to widespread adoption of pink for girls and blue for boys in the 1950s (interestingly enough, prior to the 1900s, blue was thought to be a cool/delicate color more suitable for girls, and pink was thought to be more passionate (blood-like) and more suitable for boys. Also interesting was how prior to the early 1900s, most babies wore dresses, toddlers wore rompers, young boys wore britches ("short pants), and moved on to pants about age 10-12 (while girls stayed in dresses). While the author showed WHEN the preferred colors became defined for boys and girls, I would have preferred more information on WHY society moved away from pink to blue for boys.
August 20, 2025
There was a time in this country when most babies dressed exclusively in white. Later, not much more than a century ago, the move to distinctive colors dictated pink for boys (perceived as the stronger color) and blue for girls (delicate and dainty). Times change, but why? This thoroughly researched work examines gendered norms and how they are expressed not just in colors, but also utility, pattern, and embellishment. Written in a slightly academic manner yet still accessible, this volume provides a fascinating look at how we've attempted to shape children's understanding of their gender by what we've had them wear. Actual rating: 3.5
May 27, 2019
An extremely interesting, if occasionally academic, history of the changing role of gender in infant and children's fashions. Paoletti does a nice job of weaving archival material documenting clothing trends (studies of historic costume collections, catalogues, magazines, baby books and even paper dolls) with a review of shifting approaches to gender psychology, child development, and cultural narratives around gender. Appreciate that the author went well beyond the pink-blue distinction to look at more nuanced ways that gender is signaled in children's clothing.
June 6, 2020
Interesting analysis in an area of history (clothing intersecting with sex and gender) I haven't studied. I'd recommend this book for anyone interested in the politics and/or psychology of what babies and young children wear.
December 1, 2018
Details how Americans moved from gender neutral white to mark asexualbabies and toddlers to 1980s hyper gendered pinks and blues. Cool info but a bit of a slow read.
October 4, 2019
Bonus half star for not being dry and completely boring me in spite of how interested I am in the subject like most of my attempts at nonfiction.
Read
July 15, 2021DNF
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews