I have been thinking a lot this summer about labels. Labels have been frequently in the news, often surrounding very serious events. Two labels that occasionally (although not often) come up here are “feminine” and “masculine,” used to describe decor. These days I am not liking these labels. I am thinking: Never again will I use these words on this blog, unless used to examine history. Dear readers, what do you think? Above: In 1954, Kohler did not shy from putting a boy in a pink bathroom. Would any company do this today?
Did you see this recent story about Target’s decision to no longer use gender descriptions to differentiate toys, home and entertainment? I’m liking this.
Here are a few of my thoughts on why the time has come to sideline the terms “feminine” and “masculine” to describe decor and decorating styles:
- It seems that these labels are virtually all driven by cultural norms that change over time and are in no way absolute. For example, we’ve written before about Jo Paolettis’s book, Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America (affiliate link), which studied how the modern associations of pink for girls and blue for boys rose to prominence relatively recently in the history of child rearing. And wood paneling — probably widely viewed as a man-cave material today — well, that was such a common wall covering for so many decades in the 20th Century that I can’t imagine it was viewed as masculine or feminine. Is there any aspect of a decorating preference that is truly hard-wired into our biology based on our sex? Okay, I did track this story in 2008, but now the source link is dead, so I don’t know how to investigate further.
- These decorating labels promote and reinforce hard-to-change cultural norms that run deep and which limit the behaviors and opportunities of people of both genders. As in: If so-called feminine decor is soft and ornamental –> then so must be girls and women. Ergo, hard-edged, no-nonsense “masculine” decor underscores the notion that men must be these things, too.
- They are stereotypes. Nix these labels and instead, work a little harder to find and use more specific descriptive language about the decorating choices made by each unique individual.
Why do you think about using the terms “feminine” and “masculine” to describe decor, dear readers?
.
Karen Klinedinst says
I personally feel that using the terms “masculine” or “feminine” to describe anything is lazy. It doesn’t really describe anything, because we all have our own ideas about what those terms mean. If you use those terms to describe something, all you will see is the stereotype without looking at what’s really there.
Bobbie says
Thank you, Pam. I think you’re really taking a step forward with this blog in looking at this. I love retro design, but think it important to also think critically about the times from which it was born. What’s more, I think it unnecessarily divisive to decide what is for “boys” vs. that for “girls.” PINK BATHROOMS SHOULD BE LOVED BY ALL EQUALLY!!
ModCodAli says
The fact that you are even asking this question leads me to conclude that you are leaning toward doing away with gender descriptors. It’s your blog, and you have the ability, responsibility and privilege to have this space reflect the world, at least this little corner of it, how you want it to be. So in that context I think you should do what you think reflects your values and how you want the world to be. I know that some people think this is much ado about nothing, but you already edit out adjectives people commonly use to describe decor that they don’t like because, I assume, their negative tone doesn’t relect what you want this space to be.
As far as my own opinion goes, while on one hand, gender adjectives are so pervasive that I don’t think much about them, in a larger context, the sooner we quit thinking that x is for girls and y is for boys, the better off we will all be IMO. To me, it’s not about making the world more androgynous; it’s about not making a man feel weird about wearing a pink shirt or a having floral couch, or a woman weird for wearing oxford stripes and buying a leather couch. Or even worse, that ‘real’ men shouldn’t care about interior design or ‘real’ women shouldn’t be interested in construction. And to get there, we are eventually going to need to reflect that belief in our language.
cellen says
I’m afraid my request that this not be overthought was too late. This has clearly already been way overthought.
Good luck to everyone here. Thanks for all the helpful decorating suggestions, advice, examples over the last few years!!
Ed says
Don’t overthink this conversation. Not likely to change much of the rest of the blog, in my estimation. This article is the first time I recall seeing either of the featured words (I’m new here, but I’ve been reading up on the previous posts). I’m sure they’ve been used occasionally, but it doesn’t appear that they’ve been used to any great extent.
MbShea says
Hi PK,
Jo Paoletti put at link on her fb author page, inviting discussion here. You may recall that she is a friend and colleague.
I grew up in an 1950s-built ranch in Great Falls, MT, with two bathrooms: a “Jill” bath in pale almost flesh-tone pink and the other a “Jack” with light blue trim. Now, my one bathroom in my tiny 1943 war worker cottage is a Jack. In 1947 center hall colonial (lived for 19 years), the bathroom was Jill, in a mauve pink that many hated but I loved. Save the Pink Bathrooms is how I found this website, for decor ideas and even how to find a faucet part.
Did others hear these names growing up? Region? Date?
Love my old bathrooms…..all, it seems, save for college and vagabond living reflect the pink and blue trends of the post war housing styles.
pam kueber says
Yikes. I’ll go look! Thanks for letting me know!
Yes, Jack and Jill bathrooms. I have always heard Jack ‘n Jill bathrooms defined as one bathroom in between two bedrooms. The Brady Bunch had one. It wasn’t a color thing. It was the layout between the two rooms.
Looks like we have three stories on J&Js including one with a drawing: https://retrorenovation.com/search-results/?q=jack%20and%20jill%20
wilbeforce says
If you apply contemporary context to the past you lose the context of the past.
Mike S says
I remember a particular Leave It to Beaver episode where the Beav was talking to a buddy about going to a dance. His buddy said, “With a girl?” Beav replied, “That’s all there is.” The business of wiping away boys and girls, men and women, male and female is all the rage, but who, really, is pushing the agenda? We’re born either male or female, and there is no in-between gender–no, none whatsoever. It’s FACT, and facts are what get in the way of political and social agendas. What we’re to do to be successful is to be humble, helpful to one another, considerate, and steadfast for that which is true. A lie is a lie, and truth is truth. Like the Beav said, “It’s all there is.” Odd, isn’t it, that in a world in which we’re to “celebrate diversity”, we’re to believe, somehow, that men and women are the same. I’m with Clint Eastwood on this one: “There’s a rebel lying deep in my soul. Anytime anybody tells me the trend is such and such, I go the opposite direction. I hate the idea of trends. I hate imitation; I have a reverence for individuality.” Males are male and females are female, and that’s that.
LREKing says
“Males are male and females are female, and that’s that.”
Sorry, but aside from it being a tautology, I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. All women are not alike. All men are not alike. The world is analog, not digital.
Mike S says
Your reaction is indeed the problem with the “should we refer to gender” issue. Who said all women were alike? They’re women, yes, but alike? Who said? I didn’t. Men are men, at the very least in the respect that they aren’t women. But who said all men are alike? Women? Yes, women say that. But it simply isn’t true, and a knee-jerk reaction is part of the programming, I’d say. Anatomically speaking, women can bear children, and men can’t. All men don’t go to bars and watch sports with their buddies, and neither do all men follow NASCAR races or have fantasy football teams. Some women wouldn’t be caught dead at Lowe’s, while others wouldn’t be caught dead at Macy’s. So, you’re correct in saying that all men and women are not alike. You see, I knew that already, thank you very much.
LREKing says
So a woman who has had a hysterectomy is a man?
You’re welcome to your opinion, but not everyone is going to agree with it.
KatherineB says
I think the tough part of this issue is that there are two distinct cases in play in this forum– the past and the present. In a historical sense, it is hard to deny that builders, designers, and homeowners of the past probably would have had gender-based use in mind while creating spaces, at least until the later edges of the mid century period, just for ease of marketing if nothing else. If put in that context I don’t see the harm in acknowledging masculine and feminine–it doesn’t have to be a label that continues to define the space in a modern setting, it can be an adjective that prompts one to appreciate details in a different way by considering the original intentions behind it. It’s stickier when used in the present as it can feel judgmental/can come across as more presumptuous than descriptive– possibly because we know what our own intentions for or reactions to the space are so it can feel offensive. The only solution I can think of involve coining politically correct terms like “historically intended to appeal to the tastes of a contemporaneous [feminine/masculine] audience”… which just sound awful.
Other readers must have better ideas on how to signal context– is there we can salvage the historical context while avoiding judge-y modern usage?
Tikimama says
And a quick story: when my oldest daughter was an infant, say about 6 months old, she had very little hair and wouldn’t STAND for any little clips or headbands being on her head! We were having a yard sale one day, and an older woman with a heavy German accent came by and was oohing and aaahing over my “son”. “Such a handsome boy”, etc. Finally, my sister couldn’t stand it any longer and exclaimed, “She’s a girl! Look, she’s all dressed in pink!” (It was a pink gingham one-piece footsie outfit). The older woman was slightly confused, and then explained that in her country, pink was always for boys!
LREKing says
And here, I think, is the key to using color to identify the sexes (at least in babies): to avoid the embarrassment of onlookers.
Tikimama says
I don’t think that wanting to avoid using these gender-specific terms is about “political correctness” – a term which bugs me for just the reasons Kathy (and Neil Gaiman) above express. Our language should change based on our ever-evolving understanding of social issues and our compassion for people. Doing away with saying “boy’s toys” or “feminine decorating style” does not mean we are trying to make everyone the same! It means we recognize that most of us do not fit neatly into gender (or any other) categories. It’s hard to miss stories these days about people who describe feeling “wrong” from their earliest childhood, because they didn’t like the “right” toys or way to dress. We have come to understand that there is nothing wrong with them – whether they turn out to be a lesbian woman, a transgender person, or someone like my dad – straight, married to one woman for her whole life, and also secure in the fact that his love of crocheting makes him no less a man! In short, I agree with you Pam, that we should think about the way we use these terms in our current writing and speaking, but can still acknowledge and accept that they were used historically. No need to go back and white-out (that’s not a racial term! 😀 ) the use of such language in the past.
LREKing says
When you start seeing political correctness in the world, it is a sign that you are getting old and that the world is changing without you.