Once upon a time there was a happy little color named “Pink” and it was loved and worn by all. But one day a crazy King Trendy grabbed the happy little color and told little boys they couldn’t wear “Pink” ever again. And little boys everywhere cried. They became very “Blue”…
True story – sort of.
It wasn’t until the 1950s that the stereotype “pink means girl and blue means boy” became the popular trend in Western Europe and North America. It’s never been common practice in other countries.
There seemed to have been a serious effort in the early 1900s to establish characteristic colors for girls and boys. But it took decades to develop a consensus on what those colors were. For years one camp claimed pink was the boys’ color and blue the girls’. A 1905 Times article said so, and Parents magazine was still saying it as late as 1939.
Why pink for boys? Some argued that pink was a close relative of red, which was seen as a fiery, manly color. Others traced the association of blue with girls to the frequent depiction of the Virgin Mary in blue.
An excerpt from Ladies Home Journal, June, 1918:
“There has been a great diversity of opinion on the 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.”
It’s amazing what we learn from history. So where does that leave us today? Does it leave us mired in a stereotype where boys should never wear pink? What do you think?
--------------------------
Well, I know how I feel. The "boys" in my life, Dad & Stephen, both wear pink.
No comments:
Post a Comment