Pink and blue: the color of gender.

Assigning color to gender is mostly a twentieth-centurytrait. It should be noted that it is a practice limited mostoften to Western Europe and the Americas. It would alsoseem that the effect of color-coded gender differences (pinkfor girls, blue for boys) existed oppositely initially [10].In fact, this reversal of what we consider “normal” wasconsidered conventional, even in the early twentiethcentury. The debate of when and why pink and blue cameinto fashion to designate gender rages on, but almost everyargument alludes to a passage in the novel Little Women,published in 1868: “Amy ties a pink bow and a blue bowon Meg’s twins Daisy and Demi, so people will know thedifference between the girl and the boy.” This is said to bedone in the “French style,” suggesting that it might havebeen possible in France that pink and blue were alreadygender-specific.However, there is evidence that this practice was notalways common or always done throughout much ofEurope. In fact, in the nineteenth century, parents dressedinfants in white dresses, suggesting that color and dresseswere not used to distinguish between girls and boys [3].At one point, pink was considered more of a boy’s color,as a watered-down, bold, dramatic red, which is a fiercecolor. Instead, blue was considered more for girls. Probablythis choice was affected by the fact that blue, especiallydark blue, was associated with the Virgin Mary in ChristianEurope. In fact, painters often mixed lapis lazuli into paintsto depict what was considered the most sacred feminineicon.The Sunday Sentinal, an American newspaper, in 1914advised mothers: “If you like the color note on the littleone’s garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, ifyou are a follower of convention” (March 29, 1914).Similarly, Ladies Home Journal informed: “There has beena great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generallyaccepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. Thereason is that pink being a more decided and stronger coloris more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is moredelicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl” (June, 1918).The current pink for girls and blue for boys was notuniform until the 1950s [11]. It would seem that NaziGermany had something to do with the association of pinkwith femininity: catholic traditions in Germany andneighboring countries reverse the current color coding,because of the strong association of blue with the VirginMary; the Nazis in their concentration camps use a pinktriangle to identify homosexuals. The Nazi’s choice of pinksuggests that, by the 1930s, it was a color that in Germanyhad become associate with girls.Thus, Dress Maker Magazine stated: “The preferredcolor to dress young boys in was pink! Blue was reservedfor girls as it was considered the paler, more dainty of thetwo colors, and pink was thought to be the stronger (akin tored). It was not until WWII that the colors were reversedand pink was used for girls and blue for boys...”After World War II, blue was used extensively for men’suniforms. Therefore, blue became associated as more of amasculine color. From the 1940s onward, pink was pushedas a woman’s color. “Think pink” was the marketing sloganto convince women to embrace their femininity.The 1950s featured a virtual color explosion, not only inclothing, but also in things like appliances and furniture.Dressing children in pink and blue to specifically denotegender suggested the rising middle class and above. In