On 09/30/2013 07:28 AM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen wrote: > More seriously: I guess pink is given the connotations of cutesy, > little-girl-donesn't-know-a-thing and such.
I agree that's the case on that page. Little known historical aside though, pink used to be thought masculine: <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/magazine/24princess.t.html?pagewanted=all> > Easier, that is, unless you want to buy your daughter something that > isn’t pink. Girls’ obsession with that color may seem like something > they’re born with, like the ability to breathe or talk on the phone > for hours on end. But according to Jo Paoletti, an associate > professor of American studies at the University of Maryland, it ain’t > so. When colors were first introduced to the nursery in the early > part of the 20th century, pink was considered the more masculine hue, > a pastel version of red. Blue, with its intimations of the Virgin > Mary, constancy and faithfulness, was thought to be dainty. Why or > when that switched is not clear, but as late as the 1930s a > significant percentage of adults in one national survey held to that > split. Perhaps that’s why so many early Disney heroines — Cinderella, > Sleeping Beauty, Wendy, Alice-in-Wonderland — are swathed in varying > shades of azure. (Purple, incidentally, may be the next color to swap > teams: once the realm of kings and N.F.L. players, it is fast > becoming the bolder girl’s version of pink.) > _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
