stopped producing pink clothing in response to the decreased demand for these items by female consumers. In fact, in the Sears, Roebuck catalogs during the 1970’s, no pink toddler clothing was shown for two years, since the thought of the time was, we dress our girls more like “‘If boys and less like frilly little girls…they are going to have more options and feel freer to be active’” (Maglaty). However, the women’s liberation movement clearly did not have a lasting effect on the contemporary color associations in the United States. As the women’s liberation movement passed, current baby clothing standards were once again adopted into American culture. The main reason for this transformation was the development of pre-natal testing in the 1980’s, which allowed parents to know the gender of their coming baby during the early stages of pregnancy. If parents were aware of the gender of their baby, they could shop for or specific products, and stores could sell more “boy” “girl” specialized merchandise since parents with multiple children would purchase gender specific items for children of each sex (Maglaty). Although manufacturers took advantage of this scientific advancement by re-implementing standard baby attire colors, clothing was not the only product that became specialized; manufacturers noticed the same increase in sales with differentiation of cribs, toys, food, and other baby merchandise, so companies widened the gap between boys and girls through their adoption of new gender-specific products. As Jo Paoletti noticed, of a sudden it wasn’t just a blue overall; it was a blue overall with a “‘All teddy bear holding a football’” (Maglaty). Similarly, mothers who grew up in the time of the women’s liberation movement rejected the unisex look for their own daughters, consuming more pink, specialized products despite their own mothers’ aversion to them (Maglaty). Thus, the new age of gender specific color associations and increasing consumerism dawned in America.
stopped producing pink clothing in response to the decreased demand for these items by female consumers. In fact, in the Sears, Roebuck catalogs during the 1970’s, no pink toddler clothing was shown for two years, since the thought of the time was, “‘If we dress our girls more like boys and less like frilly little girls…they are going to have more options and feel freer to be active’” (Maglaty). However, the women’s liberation movement clearly did not have a lasting effect on the contemporary color associations in the United States. As the women’s liberation movement passed, current baby clothing standards were once again adopted into American culture. The main reason for this transformation was the development of pre-natal testing in the 1980’s, which allowed parents to know the gender of their coming baby during the early stages of pregnancy. If parents were aware of the gender of their baby, they could shop for “boy” or “girl” specific products, and stores could sell more specialized merchandise since parents with multiple children would purchase gender specific items for children of each sex (Maglaty). Although manufacturers took advantage of this scientific advancement by re-implementing standard baby attire colors, clothing was not the only product that became specialized; manufacturers noticed the same increase in sales with differentiation of cribs, toys, food, and other baby merchandise, so companies widened the gap between boys and girls through their adoption of new gender-specific products. As Jo Paoletti noticed, “‘All of a sudden it wasn’t just a blue overall; it was a blue overall with a teddy bear holding a football’” (Maglaty). Similarly, mothers who grew up in the time of the women’s liberation movement rejected the unisex look for their own daughters, consuming more pink, specialized products despite their own mothers’ aversion to them (Maglaty). Thus, the new age of gender specific color associations and increasing consumerism dawned in America.
Paradigm_Final.docx