You know why the women’s movement stalled? (It stalled, right?)
Women get stuck with pastel purple, pink and yellow pajamas when their little girls.
What’s up with that? A year or so ago I was dispatched to the local department store to buy two new pairs of PJs for Ella. I looked over racks and racks and racks and couldn’t find anything that wasn’t frilly or didn’t have frail, big-eyed princesses, feeble kitty cats or ineffectual unicorns. And rainbows. God, with the rainbows! Enough, already! Rainbow does not equal girl!
Then I looked over at the boys’ PJs. Dinosaurs! Cars! Frogs, turtles and snakes! Polar bears, trains, puppy dogs! Blue, green, red.
Can you believe there were no little girls pajamas with puppy dogs?!
Who makes up these rules? There’s nothing wrong with being frilly, but give a girl a choice, for crying out loud.
I bought Ella the most benign pair of girls PJs and one with dinosaurs. Rah! We’ve since added polar bears (two pair). She also has some nice pink jammies with a little flower motif. Again, nothing wrong with that. Just don’t pigeon hole my kid without giving her a chance to develop her own taste.
The other day in Target Trish was trying on intimate apparel and Ella was helping, I suppose. But when I stopped by to check on the progress (read: how much longer we had to stay there) the only item they’d picked out was a package of Thomas the Tank Engine underpants for Ella. Boy’s underpants. Hard cotton briefs with an access panel that my little girl will never use.
We bought ’em and she loves ’em. She plays with Purple Baby in them. She wears them while pretending to be a puppy dog. She has not had sudden urges to play with what’s not there.
I know what some of you are thinking. If Ella was a little boy, a little Ethan, would I dress him in rainbows and unicorns?
Hell no! Well … sure … if that’s what he liked. Why not! There’s … nothing … wrong with that. Girl jammies are a lot softer. Or so they seem.
Anyway. I say there oughtta be equality in boys and girls sleepwear. Who’s with me!