... protounisex? In every Sears catalog from the 1950s and early 1960s, there were several pages of neutral play clothes for boys and girls in the size 2-6X range. They are pretty much boys' clothes in a variety of colors, but they are modeled by girls as well as boys with not a peep of comment in the catalog copy. This example is from fall, 1964, but typical of styles worn by children for years before "unisex" fashion was invented.
Before you start thinking how awesomely gender-free we were back then, keep in mind that this is also the "Mad Men" era and the year after The Feminine Mystique rocked the domestic scene. So why was boyish clothing for girls ok? And why did unisex clothing for adults seem so revolutionary?
- “You’re a liberal or a conservative in America if you think the ’60s were a good thing or not. If the ’60s was a good thing, you’re left. If you think it was a bad thing, you’re right. And the confusing thing for a lot of people that gets a lot of Americans is, when they think of the ’60s, they don’t think of just the sexual revolution. But somehow or other — and they’ve been very, very, clever at doing this — they’ve been able to link, I think absolutely incorrectly, the sexual revolution with civil rights.”
- source: Rick Santorum and repealing the 1960s (Charles Blow for the New York Times)
Girls' swimsuits, Sears 1963
One of the reasons I wanted to write about unisex fashions is that they seem emblematic of a very complicated -- and unfinished -- conversation about sex, gender and sexuality. Rick Santorum's comment from last year is one expression of that conversation, and I thank him for being so honest in putting it out there. Many of us who grew up in the 1960s have mixed feelings about that era, though mine are more positive than Mr. Santorum's. Unlike him, I feel that family planning is good, abortion should be safe, legal and accessible regardless of income and that biological sex is an interesting category but not my be-all and end -all.
But here's the catch: something happens in the coding for feminine clothing in the 1960s that essentially conflates femininity, youth and sexual attractiveness, and it shows up in girls’ clothing. Six-year-olds in bikinis -- thank the 1960s.
More to come, as I am deep in writing mode for the next nine months. This site will also be changing to reflect the widening scope of my work. In my ample free tie, as they say.
Which do you think were boy/girl? Boy? Girl? Which were available in pink? Will post answers later this week.
UPDATE. Here are the answers:
21 is the only one listed as a boy's hat; it was available in blue or white.
19 is the only one listed as a girl's hat; it was available in pink or white.
All the rest were described as being for either a boy or a girl. 16 and 20 were offered in white only, 17 in a choice of white or light blue. The mitts (18) came in a set of two pair, one in white and one in blue).
My interpretation is that while pink was definitely a girl color at this point, blue was still considered a neutral option. I am also trying to figure out if the faces are made to look "masculine" or "feminine", but except for 19, it's seems too close to call.
I just acquired a 1962 Fall/Winter Sears catalog from a new friend, and have been enjoying the trip down memory lane.
So many of the play clothes, like those on the left, were neutral -- plain, solid color styles that could be worn by either boys or girls and handed down to younger siblings.
I'd forgotten that pink used to be pretty much a spring color. Fall clothes meant fall colors: more saturated hues, fewer pastels, heavier fabrics.
There were four pages of "school dresses" like these, and not a pink dress among them.
These blanket sleepers came in three colors: blue, yellow and a "nursery print" of pink and blue animals on a white background.
