I wondered how we got to pink for girls and blue for boys. And what made us gender-rigid in this respect. Here's a picture of Franklin Roosevelt in a white dress, party shoes and long hair. This was the norm in 1884 - gender-neutral. It was in the 19th century, though, that colours became gender signifiers.
This is different than what has been published as the U.S. history. But then I think that is because the research in the 1980s by Paolettis and a book published in 2011 get referenced over and over, turning into an urban legend.
"The march toward gender-specific clothes was neither linear nor rapid. Pink and blue arrived, along with other pastels, as colours for babies in the mid-19th century."
"For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. 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.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti."
Wikipedia has a long survey of countries showing that pink has been generally used for girls and blue for boys. Then it chronicles pink for boys and blue for girls. The earliest references are pink for girls and blue for boys - starting in the early 1800s to 1941.
For the blue for girls and pink for boys, scroll to the end and see the US is where the reversal is revealed in the ads.
Another close-up in the Niagara Falls conservatory.
No comments:
Post a Comment