A lively discussion of costume dramas to womens films; Shelley Cobb investigates the practice of adaptation in contemporary films made by women. The figure of the woman author comes to the fore as a key site for the representation of womens agency and the authority of the woman filmmaker.
#4078070 in eBooks 2014-12-05 2014-12-05File Name: B00QMIECSU
Review
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful. A worthwhile read for thinking parentsBy Petal88This is a great book for anyone horrified by current pink and blue extremes for boys and girls; or anyone just interested in fashion history. Highly readable; which is impressive for an academic. I liked it a lot.0 of 0 people found the following review helpful. PaolettiBy Britta WilsonThis book was bought for a class project. Paoletti did a great job of describing the recent gender divide in color in the United States.5 of 5 people found the following review helpful. An intriguing bookBy JWThe author of this book is an academic but her book is very accessible to the layperson. In this intriguing work; Jo Paoletti uses a wide variety of sources to outline the evolution of gendered clothing for infants and young children in America.For hundreds of years before the 18th century; Europeans Americans uniformly dressed female and male babies and toddlers in identical ("non-gendered") clothing - namely long white dresses that were easy for mothers to sew themselves; that made diapering easy and laundering less damaging (white cloth could be repeatedly bleached with no ill effects); and that could be used by baby after baby. Parents at that time believed that accentuating the gender of babies in any way was inappropriate and inferred sexuality. Colors were gender neutral although pastel colors in general were considered appropriate for babies but if an association between a specific color specific gender was required; it was usually boys with pink and girls with blue. By 1820; the long skirts for young children were getting shorter and pantalettes (loose pants with ruffles; lace; or other detailing worn under the dress or skirt) became common for both genders. Before 1850; it was hard for people to determine a childs gender just by looking at them but in the later 1800s; boys clothing changed. They remained in skirts but the skirts became more "manly" - little costumes of sailors; Scottish highlanders or soldiers were common. Gradually; more parents began shifting male babies to pants when they were around 6 months of age. One factor impacting the popularity of pants was the increased availability and affordability of ready-made clothing. Another factor was the increased awareness of the desirability of activity and physical fitness for healthy children (esp. boys). The pants were made of more durable fabric; tended to be dark colors to hide dirt and were simple in design to provide optimal freedom of movement. A playground movement advocated rompers for both sexes to facilitate play. By 1905; male childrens transition from skirts to the first pair of short pants and the 1st short haircut were considered the first step to manhood. During the 1920s; clothing became somewhat more gendered but neutral clothing remained popular during the Depression and during WWII so families could use hand-me-downs for their children regardless of gender. Beginning in the early 20th century; fashions and colors became symbols of gender identity. Certain colors that were once considered normal for any baby; now were delegated to females; pink was considered babyish so it was designated as only appropriate for girls. Manufacturers were happy to push gender colors because that decreased the likelihood that parents could use the same clothing for a new baby that had been used by the previous baby. In the 1960s-80s; the womens movement put forth stronger images of women and forcefully rejected sex stereotyping including the obligatory pink. Alas; there was a subsequent cultural backlash. By the mid 1980s pink became ubiquitous for girls ages 3-7 ;as it remains today (although there are some boys men who dare to wear pink). Pink took a long time though to achieve this hegemony. From the time when it was first suggested that color could or should denote gender; more than a century passed before pink became exclusively for girls. One factor increasing the use of pink was prenatal testing. Knowing in advance the gender of a child allowed parents grandparents friends to focus clothing other purchases according to the only thing they knew about the fetus - its gender. The emphasis on conservative gender roles and clothing coincided with the Reagan era and the defeat of the ERA. According to some theories; the children who had been raised with a unisex philosophy and unisex clothes may have rebelled against their parents and chosen differently for their own children. Young children; according to child psychologists; are uncertain of the permanence of their gender and are thus eager to affirm it. If parents allow children ages 3-7 to choose their own clothes (and that happens often these days) then they will go for pink for girls and blue for boys as theyve been socialized to believe those colors affirm their gender. The author briefly discusses the possibility (likelihood?) that all of this doctrinaire emphasis on gender colors reflects a deep anxiety about homosexuality in American culture even as gay rights have become more acceptable. She also briefly discusses the trends affecting girls these days - besides the obvious pinkification; parents and children must also deal with princesses; and the sexualization of clothing.
