My baby clothing obsession continues.
Am buying summer baby stuff in sales prior to move abroad next year, and don't know baby's gender yet, so am buying/eyeing up non-gender -specific clothing.
Quite a bit of it is blue: Now I like blue, I wear a lot of blue, so does DH. I happen to think think most adults and babies look good in blue - pale, dark, royal, navy, cobalt, whatever - whereas pink is harder to wear - especially if you are a portly red faced baby. Or middle aged stockbroker).
If I have a girl baby, and she spends much of the first year wearing blue vests or blue trousers or blue hoodies, are people going to give me grief over it/think she is a boy/blah blah? Is the real reason baby clothes are gender-specific to help strangers identify if the baby is male or female? Does it matter which they are, when they are just babies?
Do we treat babies differently if they are wearing blue to if they are wearing pink? Hmmm. It is my first so I don't know
Interestingly, I read somewhere that early Victorians put boys in pink - as it was a soft version of red, a manly, military, strong colour - and demure, quiet little girls were dressed in blue.
PS> The stuff may be blue but it doesn't have tractors or trains or what have you on. There are a few animals and dinosaurs knocking about, but I am a girl and I like animals and dinosaurs so i don't see a problem there.