J. Crew’s Toenail-Painting Ad Causes Pink Scare
April 13, 2011 by Melanie Klein · 220 Comments
The sweet J. Crew ad
I celebrated last week has ignited a “pink scare,” with socially conservative commentators outrageously upset. The ad features a mother– J.Crew’s creative director, Jenna Lyons–and her son delighting in one another’s company on a Saturday afternoon by painting their toenails hot pink (and thereby selling J. Crew’s Essie nail polish). The ad doesn’t make much fanfare of the nail painting and is fairly inconspicuous. As Melissa Wardy, founder of Pigtail Pals- Redfine Girly, comments on Good Morning America‘s coverage of the gendered hoopla:
The camera has to zoom in SO much on the toes to make the news story, you completely lose sight of the delightful moment between loving, doting mother and happy, beautiful son.
In, what Nikita Blue calls, “ominous paranoid ramblings,” Dr. Keith Ablow goes off in a “conspiracy-theorist tangent,” claiming this ad contributes to “psychological sterilization,” erases gender differences and homogenizes males and females by propagandizing them to choose a gender identity that is not the “natural” one they were born with:
Well, how about the fact that encouraging the choosing of gender identity, rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil—not to mention crowding operating rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts?
Media Research Center’s Erin Brown claims the ad exploits Lyons’ son, Beckett, through the “blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children.” According to Brown, ads like these and irresponsible mothers such as Lyons will create more confused boys, much like the controversial “Princess boy.”
Sexist and homophobic concerns like the ones expressed by Ablow and Brown raise several important points worth exploring. First and foremost, the notion that there is a direct correlation between color, gender and sexual identity is ludicrous. Color codes are recent social inventions, constructs originally inverse. Phyllis Burke’s Gender Shock and Peggy Orenstein’s Cinderella Ate My Daughter trace the sociohistorical origins of pink and blue segregation–gendered coding that wasn’t instilled until the early 20th century. Prior to that, glancing at a babies clothing didn’t reveal any trace of gendered identity: They all wore white gowns. Photographs of my great-grandparents, both born circa 1902, are identical and indistinguishable. Check out this photo of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1884!
Once color coding got underway in earnest, the colors were reversed. Pink, a color close to red, was equated with strength and masculinity. Light blue was a “natural” sign of femininity and, according to Orenstein’s reasearch, equated with “intimations of the Virgin Mary, constancy, and faithfulness.” Given that history, it becomes clear that color codes are arbitrary, socially constructed and have no bearing or impact on one’s “natural” gender or sexual identity. As Dr. Logan Levkoff explains:
Dear Fox, colors don’t have genders. Colors are just colors. Liking certain colors [doesn't] mean you like girls or boys, or want to be either of them, now or in the future.
Secondly, there’s nothing “natural” about gender. Gender is a social construct reflecting cultural dictates within a specific historical context and those gendered prescriptions change as the culture changes. Just as culture is dynamic and fluid, so are gendered expectations. Obviously, Ablow and Brown aren’t familiar with the difference between the biological concept of sex, referring to maleness and femaleness and the continuum between the two, and gender, the socially constructed definitions and expectations of masculinity and femininity. Their critiques of J. Crew’s ad demonstrates rampant essentialism–the idea that one’s biological sex is destiny while ignoring historical and contemporary contradictions to that idea. If having a penis “naturally” led boys and men to embody “masculinity” and a vagina “naturally” equated with all things “feminine,” we’d see much more historical and cultural uniformity.
Third, not only is the idea that the J. Crew ad squelches “naturally” assigned gender identity ridiculous given the difference between biological sex and socially constructed gender, but Ablow’s quote doesn’t address the real culprit in stifling natural and healthy explorations: the color-coded assault by marketers on children’s play. It seems to me that the hyper-segmented pink world of the princess and the blue world of the boy warrior is much more responsible for shaping gender identity than an ad featuring hot-pink toenails on a boy. In that way, J. Crew is a small sign of opening up gendered possibilities–possibilities that represent authentic personal choice.
In Brown’s opinion piece, she goes on to say that mothers such as Lyons or Sarah Manley are setting up their sons for a hard time in the future. There she’s right, and this gets to the crux of the issue. The system of patriarchy values masculinity and devalues femininity. In fact, within patriarchy, masculinity is a fundamental mainstream cultural value. In the Good Morning America segment, Manley rightly points out that if the ad featured a girl playing with trucks in the mud there wouldn’t have been this type of outcry. While girls are awash in a sea of pink, they are more likely to be encouraged and celebrated for exploring and developing “masculine” characteristics, while boys are discouraged and shamed for developing “feminine” characteristics precisely because of masculinity’s cultural capital. What Ablow or Fox don’t acknowledge is that these are simply human characteristics, gendered one way or the other and thereby differently valued. As I wrote on my Feminist Fatale blog last week:
When a 17-month-old boy is beaten to death for being too “girly,” a five-year-old is accused of being gay for choosing to dress up like Daphne from Scooby-Doo for Halloween, a boy who likes pink dresses causes headline news and a high-school football player is kicked off the field for wearing pink cleats during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I think it’s more than obvious that social expectations regarding femininity and masculinity continue to be incredibly rigid, stifling and too often dangerous.
J. Crew’s ad doesn’t depict misguided and dangerous decisions made by J. Crew or parents like Jenna Lyons. The reactions and social outcry against it depict the dangerous world of gender policing within the system of patriarchy.
Close-up of ad via J. Crew
I think children shouldn’t be worried about gender confusion. I don’t think we should be getting worked up over a little bit of nail polish on a boys feet regardless if it was pink polish. She can do whatever she feels. I think part of it has to do with the fact that our society groups activities into gender specific acitivies. Its pretty interesting how scared we are of difference in society. If something is different and no where close to societal norms, we automatically reject it. Gender is created by society and it should be normal to do as we feel. I hope when I am a parent I can teach them to be who they are and not feel scared to do things that may seem different.
I can see how this ad would spark controversy; our society is so gender-specified that a boy with nail polish on his toenails is a problem for some people, including myself. I think the ad is adorable, however I do not agree with what is being shown. I do not have much of a complaint because I would not be viewing this ad or showing it to my children. Jenna Lyons has the freedom to do what she pleases with her son and on her own ad. I understand that the pink vs. blue issue is a major gender problem and, unfortunately, causes people to be cautious with the colors they chose to use when dressing up their children. Unfortunately, I am one of those individuals. I do not have children, but if I did, my son would not be wearing pink nail polish, maybe clear polish. This is the society that I have grown up in and I have been effected by the gender-specific ideas that present themselves.
What J.Crew director Jenna Lyons did with her child is something to be applauded. She is raising her son to not live up to the stereotypical norms this society has influenced on children. Pink toe nails should not be what determine your sexuality or your gender. If a color has that much influence on a person then it clearly is a different issue. Pink was once consider being a “masculine” color and was not identified as being feminine. The fact that society has changed these view are not the issue though but it does shut down arguments like those of Dr. Keith Ablow. He is honestly being ridiculously ignorant in his comment. Melanie said it best “colors don’t have a gender.” Yes, I agree pink toe nails in a propaganda are helping eliminate gender norms but I do not agree that they are contradicting gender norms that we are supposed to “natura[lly}” be raised to live by. There is not a gender norm anyone should be forced to live by. Children should not be pushed into a world that does not suit them or feel right. Transgender children and adults are the best example. They are who they want to be, even though it goes against society’s norms. I applaud them and support their struggle. Pushing people into being something they are not simply because that’s what society wants is the reason why suicide rates among gays and the entire LGBT community is so high. They are pushed to their breaking point. Instead of trying to stop them, we should be supporting diversity among gender and sexuality. No two people are alike. No person likes the same thing. We should value that instead of seeing it as a threat to our society.
I absolutely loved this article-mostly the picture. I think it is so real. Real in the sense that I see love, happiness, and fun! Why does it matter that it is a mother and her son, or pink nailpolish instead of black!? I find it so sad that society has programmed so many people to look at this picture and immediately think about whether the child is a boy or a girl, and then further question, “wait! no way! is that really a boy!? it can’t be!” Sure it can! As a nanny to a little girl, I admire the parents’ choice to have gender neutral toys and clothes. Not every “girl” thing needs to be an explosion of pink, like most baby girl nurseries. The color pink comes along with so many stereotypes.
Recently, an acquaintance and I were discussing what our significant others got us for Valentine’s Day. I told her that my boyfriend picked out some beautiful pink roses and a very sweet card. She responded, “ I hate the color pink, my fiance knows better than to get me anything pink…I’m not that kind of girl.” I immediately thought, “umm I’m sorry but what exactly is the “kind of girl” that likes pink!?” I consider myself pretty tomboyish-but I happen to love the color pink. As I step back from this situation I find myself wondering where it was that people got the impression that certain colors represent certain “kinds” of people.
I think that it is ridiculous for a boy not to be able to wear pink. Who cares? I feel that people are too occupied with other peoples lives. Instead of embracing it as a mother and son enjoying their day together, it is seen as setting them up for abnormality. Anytime someone is different in society, we want to put a label on them. If the kid likes having his nails painted pink, let him enjoy that. People need to stop parents other people and look at themselves.
It amazes me that this particular ad caused such an uproar, and yet it does not surprise me in the least. Although our culture may appear to be a bit more accepting to the notion of homosexuality and transgender, as a whole our society is not. It is our culture that makes a particular color also stand for a gender. This goes back to gender inequalities. The two genders recognized within our culture could not possibly have the same color for its representation. I believe that a child should not be subjected to the worries of what color to wear. When I look at this picture I want to see it for what it is; a cute picture of a mother and son enjoying each other’s company, but because I have been raised within this culture it is difficult to see only that.
I find interesting that something as simple as pink nail polish could draw such an enormous number of opinions. To create such controversy over this child’s decision to like a certain color should not be judged. I say this from personal experience as my step brother is partially color blind and he happens to love bright vibrant colors. Although he cannot differentiate like the rest of us who is to say he’s wrong for liking neon pink, green, blue etc… It should be really what makes him happy not what does society sees as socially acceptable. The idea that colors and masculine/ feminine traits go hand in hand is absurd.
I’m not quite sure if the color of the nail polish made people upset or the overall concept of a boy having his nails painted did? I always wonder if the color would have been blue would people still have a problem with the AD. I have a nephew that loves to get his nails painted at first I thought it was a bit weird but after taking this class I learned that children are too young to know if it is out of the norm. The act doesn’t mean that he will be gay. It’s just something he enjoys and has fun doing.
Gender socialization begins as early as birth, it is though color distinctions that we are socialized with the notion of masculinity versus femininity. Pink conveys messages of sensitivity, tranquility, fragility, delicate while the color Blue conveys all traits associated with masculinity which are strong and assertive. When ever these colors gets mixed up especially in children such as the controversy as painting a boy’s nails pink it supposedly creates a gender confusion. Gender is socially constructed and learned behavior,m it is society who stigmatizes and regulates these gender expectations. There is a double standard in which children are either encouraged or stigmatized.The system of patriarchy devalues femininity while it values masculinity, as a result girls are able to explore masculinity in such ways, for example they are encourage sports with boys, yet at the same time little boys are taught that painting their nails, playing with barbies is wrong!!! and is only meant for girls. Sadly parents reinforce these gender stereotypes in the way they decorated children’s rooms, the way talk to their children and lastly in the colors they dress them up with. Little girls can wear shorts or dark colors and still be seen as “normal”, where as if a little boy has painted nails, or even has a spot of pink he is automatically weird and on to the road of becoming gay. I think that it is ridiculous for a boy not to be able to wear pink. Honestly who cares it is simply a shade of color just like any other. Reinforcing color segregation serves as a means to reinforce stereotypical gender roles which will make those children grow into believing other stereotypes such as women being the homemaker and men the breadwinner. Nowadays men are becoming very metro sexual so why not let children enjoy all shades of colors if they choose too.
This commercial is an interesting one. To me, it could be seen as helpful. It helped by bringing attention to the topic of the masculinity we place on colors. It’s great that the article mentions how the colors were seen to be opposite in the past. It shows us that the gender we attach to a color are just based on what society deems masculine and feminine. They hold no real gender bias. This commercial also shows us how harshly we view anything different because of the controversy it caused, when it was meant to show a mother and son having fun. It could’ve been just a simple random bonding moment, and not something that occurs everyday. Unfortunately, society judges harshly.
A little boy with pink nails attracts so much negative attention,people tend to over see the the beautiful time captured between mother and son. As long as we can keep feeding societies gender roles they will never be vanished. Pink is just a color, it shouldn’t determine anything or have any stigmas attached to it because it is just a color and girls and boys should be allowed to like the color regardless of their gender. If we keep attaching meaning to meaning less things we create meaningless stigmas that get reinforced by those who fall into this creation. We need to stop having this false impression of girls in pretty in pink scenarios and boys in masculine blue. Color should not create a significance in gender.
Gender roles seem to play a predominant and significant part in our childhood to build a foundation for personality and character. Any deviations from the norm are criticized or ridiculed, which therefore confines an individual to fully be able to express themselves as they wish. Toys, clothing, media, and our peers are just a few of many sources that help reinforce and teach these specific gender stereotypes. For example, toys probably have the largest influence in the division between girls and boys. In most toy commercials, the toys girls play with are associated with cleaning, cooking, interior decorating, and being the primary caregivers of children. Boys, on the other hand, are associated with building, heroism, aggression, and extreme competition. Kids are exposed to these messages as early as four or five-years old, and they have a huge impact on their socialization. Clothing, the media, and toys for boys and girls are largely color coded, so it is safe to say that colors have a rather large role in molding specific gender stereotypes. However, boys are scrutinized to a more severe extent than girls are. That is why this J. Crew ad created so much controversy. Some critics suggested and implied that humans are born with a gender identity. The only “natural” thing about a human is their sex, because gender is socially constructed. Males are not born associating themselves with the color, just as girls are not born associating themselves with the color pink. Though it may be true that it may set up the child to have a more difficult time in the future, we must be aware that confining our kids to particular gender roles constrains them from being able to fully express themselves which can then in turn lead to an abundant amount of psychological problems in the future.
Wow, this article is great.I think this is an amazing picture. Its so sad that there was such an upset just because this little boy was wearing pink nail polish. It was showing such a beautiful time between mother and son. It so disappointing that society is like this. When will there ever be a time with out prejudice?
Honest when I first saw this advertisement, it was little bit weird at first. I do not have anything against homosexuality, but I can see how this particular advertisement can cause controversy in the society.However , I do agree with the argument about choosing colors. I do not see anything wrong with a man wearing pink, or a female wearing blue. Though I do believe that there are certain things that are made specifically for women and men. Nail polish, in my opinion is a better fit for girls.There is nothing wrong with being feminine or masculine, because that is how the we were created.
When I look at the picture above, I look at it as a cute picture. However I do believe that this advertisement can cause a little confusion to the kids and our society.
Honestly, I dont like this advertisement. I dont think it is acceptbale for a mom to spend time with her son painting his toenails. I believe that this is something a mom should only do with her daughter. I feel like the son has no choice but to be happy because his mother has taught him to believe that painting your toenails is acceptable behavior for boys and girls. I think it would be better for the mom to spend time with her son by going outside and playing catch. I dont agree with the article at all.
This AD was scrutinized for inappropriate behavior because of society’s take on gender socialization. The outcome of this AD really showed how our society is under major gender socialization by showing how pink and blue play a part in our minds of what is automatically acceptable and what is not. In my eyes, I don’t see anything wrong with the AD because it is picturing a little boy, who most likely has no idea what is going on or what colors really mean in depth. To me, it just seems like a bonding moment of a mother and son playing. Yes to some extent, it may be a bit weird, because perhaps it would have been more of a norm to show a mom coloring with the boy, or drawing, but I still don’t see anything majorly wrong with it. I feel it was way too much of an over- reaction type of thing, rather than just seeing the best in it, as a bonding experience. Maybe the mother was painting her own nails, and in a joking way, to make her son laugh, began coloring his….just an idea. The problem doesn’t lie within the AD, the problem is in the crowd. The crowd is always under the supervision of mass media. Mass media tells us what to believe and what to see, even in shades of black and white, they will point out to us the bright red, and we will all believe it like fools. I believe it’s made a big deal of because it’s a boy, and since boys are pumped up to be macho men in our society, it’s being frowned upon. But if this were to be a girl playing with legos, I don’t believe a big controversy would be the outcome.