Cyndi Clinker
Dear editor:
As I am writing this letter, my head is still swimming from the letter headlined “Scandalous.” I hardly know where, or how, to begin but I will certainly try.
I think the first thing that needs to be clarified is that the “Day of Pink” has nothing to do with sexuality, hetero or otherwise. It does, however, have everything to do with standing up to bullies.
I would suggest that the author of the letter actually is part of the problem; part of the reason that there is a “Day of Pink.” This movement began in reaction to hateful, ignorant, bullying attitudes and the belief that a simple colour choice somehow mattered.
It doesn’t matter. Ever.
The claim that boys, or men, do not choose to wear pink is laughable. I’m not sure how old the author is but I remember my high school days, way back in the ’80s, and the number of boys who chose to wear pink shirts on a regular basis.
The shirts often were long-sleeved, button-downed dress shirts, or sometimes they were short-sleeved, and had a little alligator on them. It was a part of ’80s fashion, and their sexuality did not come into the equation.
My point is, boys and men wearing pink is not a new idea, and it certainly is not a reflection of the inner person, except with the possibility of their taste in fashion.
The following is an excerpt from a 1918 fashion publication entitled Earnshaw’s Infants’ Department:
“Pink or blue? Which is intended for boys and which for girls? This question comes from one of our readers this month, and the discussion may be of interest to others. There has been a great diversity of opinion on this subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl.
“The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.”
Also, it was believed that pink was closer to the colour red and its war-like connotations, making it a more “manly” colour. Conversely, blue often was associated with the Virgin Mary, obviously giving it a more “feminine” quality.
Regarding the scenario with the free coats, and the time frame of the 1950s-’60s, again, that is only a sign of fashion at that particular time. Perhaps women would have been more likely to choose a pink coat. Today, perhaps not. It doesn’t matter. It signifies nothing.
Now in response to the claim that “parents and teachers are persuading/pressuring a nine- or 10-year-old boy into wearing pink,” I will say, “No.” I am a parent to a 10-year-old boy. For the past several years, I have had direct experience with this.
I have not persuaded him into wearing a pink shirt, and I most certainly have not pressured him into wearing a pink shirt. What I have done is engage him in a meaningful conversation that is centered around the issue of bullying, followed by the opportunity to wear pink, and allowing his voice to be heard when he stands up and says “no” to bullies.
One year he was unable to wear a pink shirt. The morning of the “Day of Pink” came and we could not find his pink shirt anywhere. We looked high and low, but could not find it.
He was very upset—sad to think his voice would not be with all the others who chose to wear pink that day.
We managed to find a red shirt, the closest we could find to pink, and that made him feel better. I am proud of my son.
This is what the “Day of Pink” means. It means we stand up and say “no” to bullies, “no” to people who would make it about something else, just “no.”
(Signed),
Cyndi Clinker
Fort Saskatchewan, Alta.
(formerly of
Fort Frances, Ont.)
