Pink for girls; Blue for boys?

Nowadays if we walk into a department store we can be sure that we will find pink and some blue clothes, toys and little other objects for children such as books, bikes, lunchboxes, board games, toy cookers, cash registers, even games consoles. If we look at these objects there is no wonder everybody knows that pink is specified for girls and blue for boys. But how did this become a common thought? Since when do we use colors to make a difference between genders? And why exactly did we choose pink and blue to fulfill this role?

In the 1800s most infants were dressed in white and both boys and girls wore dresses or short skirts until the age of five or six. Although, there was a few small difference between boy and girl clothing. For example girls wore dresses which were buttoned up in the back while boys’ dresses were buttoned up in the front. So gender difference wasn’t highlighted just in a little scale. Why wasn’t this important in that age of time? One theory is that distinguishing boys from girls was less important than distinguishing kids from adults. Childhood was a time of innocence while adulthood typically meant working hard.
By the 1850s other colors than white had started to appear in baby clothing, but gender-based distinctions were slow to emerge. For example a Times fashion report from 1880 says that boys and girls were dressed alike in shades of blue, pink, white or violet; another report from 1892 says young girls were wearing a variety of colors that spring, including several shades of blue. But from 1890s boys’ and girls’ clothing style started to diverge. Boys’ clothing became more masculine, instead of dresses they begun to dress the boys in trousers or shorts at an early age. As part of this differentiation, there seems to have been an effort to establish characteristic colors for girls and boys. But it took decades to develop a consensus on what those colors were. Slowly emerged two gender-specific color: pink and blue. Although at first pink was identified with boys because it’s a close relative of red which was considered a fierce and manly color. On the other hand blue seemed to be more proper for girls because of its connection to the Virgin Mary, delicacy and grace.
Many newspapers seemed to be interested in this topic considering the fact that there are numerous quotes from women magazines trying to set this trend in the western world. You can find some examples below.
’If you like the color note on the little one's garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention.’ [The Sunday Sentinel, March, 1914.]
’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.’ [Ladies Home Journal, June, 1918]

Some of the famous Disney movies were made in the first half of the 1900s for example Snow White in 1937 and Cinderella in 1950. If you are familiar with these movies you know that both of the main lady characters –Snow White and Cinderella- were wearing blue dresses, which supports the fact that this trend became a well-known custom in people’s lives.

However, today as you know this isn’t the case anymore. What happened? Why and when did this custom changed exactly to the opposite? But most importantly: how? There are many theories but the most common one is that the change is connected to World War II. Researchers say that change spread after the World War II. or you can say during the World War II., as it is well-known that the Nazis used a pink triangle to identify the homosexuals in the concentration camps. Although, this choice suggests that in Germany in the 1930s pink already was associated with girls in some way.
When the war ended people were craving after colors in fashion as during the war they had to wear dull khaki and brown tones. People showed a fondness of pastel colors, they desired softer and evocative tones and this way pink and blue became designer colors and highly popular in the 50’s. Woman, having been successfully out in the workforce in droves during wartime, were now sent back to home and kitchen to become housewives and mothers.

Probably the most convincing reason for the growing blue and pink mania is that advertisers recognized the marketing power of gender assigned colors. Soon consumers were bombarded by advertisers, through television, billboards and magazines with images of slick pink, blue and green products the fashion color choices of the decade. Barbie, the Princess of Pink, was invented and images of girls and women in pink began to infiltrate the collective psyche.

Another explanation for the switch could be that pink for girls was perceived as ‘sexier’. After all the post-war media was flooded with sexy images in advertising due to ‘sexualization’, just think about the ‘pin up girls’. Not to mention the fact that pink is the color of the lips, nipples, genitalia and blushing emotions.
So we could say at this time in the western world there was a strong pink and blue advertising propaganda. For example in one of Audrey Hepburn’s movie -which was made in 1957 and called Funny Faces- there is a song about wearing pink.
YouTube video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcCN6XA61Es&feature=player_embedded

Also Marilyn Monroe who was considered a sex symbol was wearing pink quite often. For example in her movie ‘Gentlemen prefer blondes’ (1953) while she is singing ‘Diamonds are a girl’s best friend’ she wears a pink gown.
YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZtGybjFjOU&feature=related

Both these women were very strong icons and their sense of fashion highly influenced the public.

But lets turn back to the blue color. It wasn’t just associated with the male gender. It has become the color or moodiness, sadness, depression, calmness, softness and a musical genre. Associations of boys with blue can be found much earlier than 1950; in the nursery rhyme Little Boy Blue, for example, and Gainsborough's famous Blue Boy painting. It's certainly possible that such well known works gave support to the ‘blue for boys’ shift. The nursery rhyme sounds like this:
‘Little Boy Blue come blow your horn,
The sheep's in the meadow the cow's in the corn.
But where is the boy who looks after the sheep?
He's under a haystack fast asleep.
Will you wake him? No, not I - for if I do, he's sure to cry.’

Nowadays this whole pink and blue custom is starting to dilute. It is perfectly okay for a boy or man to wear pink without the assumption of being homosexual. Although in baby clothing it’s still hard to find pink clothes for boys but we can find other options for example green or yellow clothes which are starting to be popular.
Also there are people who are against this almost 60 years old habit. For example two women Abi and Emma Moore started a campaign in 2009 which is called PinkStinks and targets children’s market offering girls other options than pink. If we think about it, it is crazy that boys can be bullied or picked on by other children for having for example a pink backpack or girls can be mocked just because they don’t like pink as a color. Not to mention the fact that these memories won’t fade away by growing up and these people will bring up their children following the same old way: pink for girls; blue for boys.
So can we say this gender-specified color phenomena is culturally created? Can we say this is the result of a good propaganda? I think we can! Can we do something about it? It’s up to us.

Sources: http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/dec/12/pinkstinks-the-power-of-pink http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2831/was-pink-originally-the-color-for-boys-and-blue-for-girls http://hubpages.com/hub/Pink-and-Blue http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=238733
http://www.gender-focus.com/2010/09/23/pink-for-girls/