<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Comment de la semaine</title>
	<link>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: KB</title>
		<link>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18238</link>
		<author>KB</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 May 2006 23:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18238</guid>
		<description>Geez, babies don't even look human at 6 days.  Until a couple of months all they do is leak from various orifices...all the gender differences do is make cleanup more or less difficult, depending on piping.  

I'm having a girl, and I just plan on dressing her in whatever's quick and clean, just like my boy 12 yrs ago.

Who cares what color they wear?  Babies are just means to kids, anyway, and I'm saying that about my own.  They're BORING.  There, I've said it.  They don't get interesting until  about 5 or 6.  Until then it's just bonding and maintanance until they grow cool.  I mean, they're cute and all but let's be realistic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Geez, babies don&#8217;t even look human at 6 days.  Until a couple of months all they do is leak from various orifices&#8230;all the gender differences do is make cleanup more or less difficult, depending on piping.  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m having a girl, and I just plan on dressing her in whatever&#8217;s quick and clean, just like my boy 12 yrs ago.</p>
<p>Who cares what color they wear?  Babies are just means to kids, anyway, and I&#8217;m saying that about my own.  They&#8217;re BORING.  There, I&#8217;ve said it.  They don&#8217;t get interesting until  about 5 or 6.  Until then it&#8217;s just bonding and maintanance until they grow cool.  I mean, they&#8217;re cute and all but let&#8217;s be realistic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FaerieDust</title>
		<link>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18125</link>
		<author>FaerieDust</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2006 12:32:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18125</guid>
		<description>I dressed bopth my girls in greens, yellows, etc.--non-gendered colors. People would come up and congratulate me on my little boy, and while saying thanks, I'd mention my daughter's name. These poor folks would fall all over themselves apologizing for calling my girl a boy--OMG, we've assigned this infant the incorrect gender identification! Of course I see those curly eyelashes and rosy cheeks now! What an adorable GIRL! :::pant pant sigh::: I never really got why it was so important to begin dumping gender issues on 2-week-olds. On the other side, there were mothers in my moms' group who got highly offended if you called their darling boy a girl. He's not a girl--he's all boy (at 6 days old...).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I dressed bopth my girls in greens, yellows, etc.&#8211;non-gendered colors. People would come up and congratulate me on my little boy, and while saying thanks, I&#8217;d mention my daughter&#8217;s name. These poor folks would fall all over themselves apologizing for calling my girl a boy&#8211;OMG, we&#8217;ve assigned this infant the incorrect gender identification! Of course I see those curly eyelashes and rosy cheeks now! What an adorable GIRL! :::pant pant sigh::: I never really got why it was so important to begin dumping gender issues on 2-week-olds. On the other side, there were mothers in my moms&#8217; group who got highly offended if you called their darling boy a girl. He&#8217;s not a girl&#8211;he&#8217;s all boy (at 6 days old&#8230;).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gertrude Strine</title>
		<link>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18113</link>
		<author>Gertrude Strine</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 May 2006 04:34:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18113</guid>
		<description>Comment 30:
"Gertrude see the essay â€œWelcome to Cancerlandâ€ in Twistyâ€™s FAQ aka Extra Credit"

(( _ ))

Been there, done that.
I've seen it better written much shorter, but the North American www reader (note my display of having delved into this site's archive) seems to like it said the longer way.

Fuck cancer marketing was all I was saying in post 29 if the door bitch (^_-) doesn't mind.

Comment 31:
"The other is the reuse issue"  
So true.  Hence "restrictive" in what I wrote above.
The marketers don't want stuff to get re-used, do they.   *L*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Comment 30:<br />
&#8220;Gertrude see the essay â€œWelcome to Cancerlandâ€ in Twistyâ€™s FAQ aka Extra Credit&#8221;</p>
<p>(( _ ))</p>
<p>Been there, done that.<br />
I&#8217;ve seen it better written much shorter, but the North American www reader (note my display of having delved into this site&#8217;s archive) seems to like it said the longer way.</p>
<p>Fuck cancer marketing was all I was saying in post 29 if the door bitch (^_-) doesn&#8217;t mind.</p>
<p>Comment 31:<br />
&#8220;The other is the reuse issue&#8221;<br />
So true.  Hence &#8220;restrictive&#8221; in what I wrote above.<br />
The marketers don&#8217;t want stuff to get re-used, do they.   *L*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ms Kate</title>
		<link>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18078</link>
		<author>Ms Kate</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 16:00:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18078</guid>
		<description>There were two good reasons to avoid pink and blue gendercoding.  One was that you didn't used to know what gender of babe was coming until he or she arrived.  The other is the reuse issue - you don't want to buy lots of clothes which fit for three weeks and then buy a new set because baby two was not the same type as baby one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There were two good reasons to avoid pink and blue gendercoding.  One was that you didn&#8217;t used to know what gender of babe was coming until he or she arrived.  The other is the reuse issue - you don&#8217;t want to buy lots of clothes which fit for three weeks and then buy a new set because baby two was not the same type as baby one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pony</title>
		<link>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18076</link>
		<author>Pony</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 14:10:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18076</guid>
		<description>Gertrude see the essay "Welcome to Cancerland" in Twisty's FAQ aka Extra Credit</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gertrude see the essay &#8220;Welcome to Cancerland&#8221; in Twisty&#8217;s FAQ aka Extra Credit</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gertrude Strine</title>
		<link>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18070</link>
		<author>Gertrude Strine</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 05:45:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18070</guid>
		<description>Comment 28:

"In random historical issues, up until WWII (roughly), pink was for little boys, and blue for girls. Pink, as a pale red, was considered more exciting, strong, and virile - much more appropriate for boys - while calm, tranquil blue was the obvious choice for girls."


There's no doubt about that pink/blue as a sex signifier has been given strong emphasis in recent decades.
Marketing latched on to a nice easy way to make an extra buck or three.
But there's equally no support for the sweeping claim about pink having being strongly associated with boys before 1939.

Give a source for this kind of statement.  One that remains findable online.  It helps keep the internet freer of shite.

In Australia, knitting ladies fought a rearguard action against the blue/pink readymade garment industry well into the late fifties, when lemon and cream remained far more popular tones for bubs' layettes and toddler wear than the determinist and restrictive US blue and pink. 
This is a personal observation from my having been alive at the time and from my having learned to knit, crochet and sew from my women elders who talked always about colour choice and its meaning.
My oldest Auntie, born in 1885, told us that children were dressed in cream or white until they were past toddling and then were dressed in the same colours as adults.   At the most, girls were permitted colour differences in hair ribbons and sashes.  And these were mostly blue and yellow.  

Pink was viewed by my women sewing teachers as faintly poor taste and very very hard to mix with any other shade.

Looking at the way it's used to sell merchandise with a cancerous woman overtone these days, I think it's getting even more nauseating.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Comment 28:</p>
<p>&#8220;In random historical issues, up until WWII (roughly), pink was for little boys, and blue for girls. Pink, as a pale red, was considered more exciting, strong, and virile - much more appropriate for boys - while calm, tranquil blue was the obvious choice for girls.&#8221;</p>
<p>There&#8217;s no doubt about that pink/blue as a sex signifier has been given strong emphasis in recent decades.<br />
Marketing latched on to a nice easy way to make an extra buck or three.<br />
But there&#8217;s equally no support for the sweeping claim about pink having being strongly associated with boys before 1939.</p>
<p>Give a source for this kind of statement.  One that remains findable online.  It helps keep the internet freer of shite.</p>
<p>In Australia, knitting ladies fought a rearguard action against the blue/pink readymade garment industry well into the late fifties, when lemon and cream remained far more popular tones for bubs&#8217; layettes and toddler wear than the determinist and restrictive US blue and pink.<br />
This is a personal observation from my having been alive at the time and from my having learned to knit, crochet and sew from my women elders who talked always about colour choice and its meaning.<br />
My oldest Auntie, born in 1885, told us that children were dressed in cream or white until they were past toddling and then were dressed in the same colours as adults.   At the most, girls were permitted colour differences in hair ribbons and sashes.  And these were mostly blue and yellow.  </p>
<p>Pink was viewed by my women sewing teachers as faintly poor taste and very very hard to mix with any other shade.</p>
<p>Looking at the way it&#8217;s used to sell merchandise with a cancerous woman overtone these days, I think it&#8217;s getting even more nauseating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tapetum</title>
		<link>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18064</link>
		<author>Tapetum</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:17:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18064</guid>
		<description>In random historical issues, up until WWII (roughly), pink was for little boys, and blue for girls. Pink, as a pale red, was considered more exciting, strong, and virile - much more appropriate for boys - while calm, tranquil blue was the obvious choice for girls.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In random historical issues, up until WWII (roughly), pink was for little boys, and blue for girls. Pink, as a pale red, was considered more exciting, strong, and virile - much more appropriate for boys - while calm, tranquil blue was the obvious choice for girls.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edith</title>
		<link>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18063</link>
		<author>Edith</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 04:15:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18063</guid>
		<description>Hothead IS Twisty.  Right?  Because if not, then I've been seriously picturing some awesome and fucked up shit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hothead IS Twisty.  Right?  Because if not, then I&#8217;ve been seriously picturing some awesome and fucked up shit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Annie</title>
		<link>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18059</link>
		<author>Annie</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 01:54:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18059</guid>
		<description>or BlameHard!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>or BlameHard!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mandos</title>
		<link>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18058</link>
		<author>Mandos</author>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2006 01:47:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/28/comment-de-la-semaine/#comment-18058</guid>
		<description>You have to admit it's an amusing image, though.  I mean, think Minority Report as the suggester of this idea said.  It could be a movie: BlameForce!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You have to admit it&#8217;s an amusing image, though.  I mean, think Minority Report as the suggester of this idea said.  It could be a movie: BlameForce!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
