X
15
1.
Jenny 3 year s ago
Interesting post, but I could do without the narrator's big mug smack in my face in so many frames.
       
4
2.
K.c. 3 year s ago
nice try gendered clothes always existed just take a look at old paintings and old photographs
       
3
3.
Drew 3 year s ago
K.c.,

He literally said that
       
4
4.
Edny 3 year s ago
What a flipping idiot and total misinterpatation of actual history.

Grabbing unrelated snippets from bizarre sources does not prove his agendized point.

Total fail
       
5
5.
Ebbie 3 year s ago
I dislike this new format with the persons face in it. I'm getting old.
       
5
6.
Mandy 3 year s ago
There is a vast difference between noting that clothing options differed for genders throughout history (dresses, kilts, tunics, etc for men) and any implication that it was because we had different opinions on gender in general.
Today we aren’t arguing whether men can wear dresses, but whether wearing one makes you a woman.
       
6
7.
Maud 3 year s ago
Those pix have nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with fashion/style.

re: Gender
An apple is NOT an orange.
       
3
8.
Phillip 3 year s ago
Zoomer: Look men wearing dresses! Its always been fluid!

Sane person: that's a kilt kid. Go read a book for once in your life.
       
-2
9.
Robby 3 year s ago
This site is becoming more and more a left wing woke bullsh#t peddling sh#t-hole.
       
0
10.
Louise 3 year s ago
Robby,

Because that stuff is more interesting and educational than guns and cars
       
-1
11.
Onnie 3 year s ago
Louise,
You made my day.
       
6
12.
Robbie 3 year s ago
Regardless of how they dressed, men were still men and women were women. No one in those old photos and paintings with dangly bits was pretending to be woman of the year.
       
2
13.
Augustine 3 year s ago
My mother always told me that it was totally common for kids wearing 'unisex' dresses until age of like 6-8. Not long ago many child's died through 1001 different reasons before aging and f** really nobody cared about until now so they can sell more sh**. drinks
       
1
14.
Vessie 3 year s ago
... plumber- always blame the plumber. If you got wrong plumbing everything else is irrelevant.
       
27353641acute
belayclappingdance3dashdirol
drinksfoolgirl_craygirl_devilgirl_witch
goodgreenheartJC-LOLJC_doubledown
JC_OMG_signkisslaughingman_in_lmocking
mr47_04musicokroflsarcastic
sm_80tonguevishenka_33vomitwassat
yahooshoot

The Smithsonian Magazine points out that “the march toward gender-specific clothes was neither linear nor rapid.” Both pink and blue-colored clothes, along with other pastels, were used for babies’ clothing in the mid-19th century. However, it wasn’t until the First World War that the colors became assigned to specific genders. In 1918, it was the general view that pink was a color meant for boys while the more “delicate and dainty” blue, according to one publication by Earnshaw’s Infants’ Department, was meant for girls.

The trend to dress boys up in pink continued. In 1927, Time magazine suggested that parents do just that. Things changed in the 1940s after manufacturers and retailers began establishing styles. Historian Jo B. Paoletti from the University of Maryland told the Smithsonian Magazine that “it could have gone the other way” very easily.

Opinions toward gendered clothing began shifting once again in the 1960s and 1970s as the women’s liberation movement gained more and more traction. And then they changed once again in the 1980s as some mothers “rejected the unisex look for their own daughters” after having grown up without feminine clothes and styles themselves.

 

X
Guy Shows Another Perspective Of Gender Norms Throughout History
>
2/29
<