Wednesday, July 21, 2004
is pat the enemy?
i was wandering my local target [love it -- two floors, free parking garage, starbucks inside] last night and walked past the little kids clothes sections. in the girls section, every thing was either festooned with glitter or ruffles, some shade of pink or purple, or both. amidst the racks and rounders was a baby in a stroller with one of those elastic ruffle-bow headband jobbies on.
why do people feel that those lacy infant headbands are important? have you ever worn an elastic band around your head all day? it's not really all that comfortable. now consider wearing a band around your incompletely formed head without hair or the motor skills to take it off and give yourself a good skull-rub before putting it back on at just the right halo-esque angle. oh, and don't forget that you don't have the verbal capacity to say if it's pinching your little ol' fontanelles. is it really that vital to broadcast: "attention, target shoppers! this is a girl! repeat: this is a girl!"
what would really happen if you put your baby in non-gender specific clothing? people wouldn't know how to relate to it, right? they wouldn't know whether to call it pretty or tickle its chubby tummy a little more vigorously. are people afraid of the "pat phenomenon"?
if you have a lot of "boy clothes" and you find yourself with a girl, do you really have to go buy all new "girl things"? why are these things important?
p.s. there was a really glittery, sassy little tee that said, "princess preppy." huh? what does preppy mean nowadays? there was no grosgrain to be found and i'm pretty sure it was poly-cotton blend... and the glitter? i never saw glitter at pappagallo, have you? is there a new definition for preppy today?
Posted by P at 12:59 PM