Was pink originally the color for boys and blue for girls?
December 19, 2008Dear Cecil:
I came across a piece of information that said that in the first half of the 20th century, pink was a boy's color while blue was a girl's color. But it didn't say why the colors switched. I figured if anyone knew, it would be you, Cecil. Or at least you'd make up a good story and pretend you knew.
— Jay B.
Cecil replies:
Quiet, churl. I never pretend. I merely put the truth in a daring new light.
Before we take up your question, we need to address one that the average reader is likely to think is more pertinent: You're telling me that, once upon a time, the color for boys was pink?
Let me put it this way — some people sure thought it was.
In the 1800s most infants were dressed in white, and gender differences weren't highlighted until well after the kids were able to walk. Both boys and girls wore dresses or short skirts until age five or six. Differences in clothing were subtle: boys’ dresses buttoned up the front, for example, while girls’ buttoned up the back. Why no attempt to discriminate further? One theory is that distinguishing boys from girls was less important than distinguishing kids from adults. Childhood was a time of innocence, whereas adulthood typically meant grueling physical labor. Perhaps mothers decking out their little boys in dresses thought: They’ll get to be manly soon enough.
By midcentury baby clothing in colors other than white had begun to appear, but gender-based distinctions were slow to emerge. In 1855 the New York Times reported on a "baby show" put on by P.T. Barnum, exhibiting "one hundred and odd babies" dressed in pinks, blues, and other colors seemingly without regard to gender. In a passage from Louisa May Alcott's 1868-'69 blockbuster Little Women, a female twin is distinguished by a pink ribbon and a male twin by a blue one, but this is referred to as "French fashion," suggesting it wasn't the rule over here. A Times fashion report from 1880 has boys and girls dressed alike in white, pink, blue, or violet, and another from 1892 says young girls were wearing a variety of colors that spring, including several shades of blue.
But from the 1890s onward, boys' and girls' clothing styles started to diverge, with boys dressed in trousers or knickers at progressively earlier ages. Jo Paoletti of the University of Maryland, a longtime specialist on the topic, reviewed more than 500 descriptions and images of children's clothing appearing in print between 1890 and 1920 and notes a rapid "masculinization" of boys' wear, for reasons that remain obscure.
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. 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.
I’m not convinced, however, that there was ever a consensus that pink was for boys and blue was for girls. On the contrary, indications are the two colors were used interchangeably until World War II. Examples of pink as a mark of the feminine aren't hard to come by, one of the cruder being the use of a pink triangle to identify homosexuals in Nazi prison camps. After the war the tide shifted permanently in favor of blue as a boy's color. In 1948, royal-watchers reported Princess Elizabeth was obviously expecting a boy, since a temporary nursery set up in Buckingham Palace was gaily trimmed with blue satin bows. By 1959 the infantwear buyer for one department store was telling the Times, "A mother will allow her girl to wear blue, but daddy will never permit his son to wear pink."
How did pink get ghettoized as a girls' color? Nobody really knows. Professor Paoletti thinks the choice was largely arbitrary, but others credit innate biological tendencies. Research on color preference in monkeys has shown females prefer warmer colors like pink and red — supposedly an infant primate's pink face brings out its mother's nurturing instincts. A color preference study of Caucasian and Chinese men and women showed both Caucasian and Chinese women strongly preferred red and pink, while Caucasian men strongly preferred blue and green. However, the Chinese men showed a broader range, with many picking red and pink — possibly because in China red is considered lucky. To me that suggests the biology argument is pretty weak. Sure, my favorite color is blue. But it's entirely possible I say that because I was always told I should.
— Cecil Adams
by Tovia Smith
Gay advocates are hailing a U.S. district court ruling in Boston that could bring federal recognition to gay marriages from Massachusetts. On Thursday, the judge said part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act — DOMA — is unconstitutional.
The case was brought by eight gay couples who argued the federal government was unfairly denying them basic perks that other married couples get — like Social Security benefits and certain tax breaks.
The couples argued the federal government has always deferred to states on who's married — for example, in terms of age or race — so if Massachusetts says they are married, they should be recognized as married.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro agreed. He said when it comes to providing benefits, he could conceive of "no way" in which a couple's sexual orientation is relevant.
"I was cooking dinner and heard it and I just let out a woo hooo," says Nancy Gill.
The ruling means that her longtime partner, Marcelle Letourneau, whom she married in 2006, can now get health insurance through Gill's job with the U.S. Postal Service. "I just think how life-changing this can be for our family," Letourneau says. "I mean it gives us peace of mind."
The court ruled that denying benefits to gay couples was not only discriminatory but also a violation of states' rights.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley made that argument in a parallel, separate suit, accusing the federal government of encroaching on state sovereignty — and the court agreed.
"It's exactly the result we that wanted," Coakley says. "The federal government really doesn't have an interest in telling Massachusetts, and has never in the past had an ability to dictate how states define marriage. Marriage has been an issue that has been decided by the states."
It's an argument particularly infuriating to conservative opponents, who've used the states' rights arguments to fight gay marriage.
They insist Congress was well within its rights in 1996 to define marriage for the purpose of federal programs. They add that the judge overstepped when he ruled that DOMA had absolutely no rational basis and, in legal terms, amounts to "irrational prejudice."
"That's absurd to say that the voters in 31 states, who've held that marriage is the union of a man and woman, are somehow bigots; that's absurd," says Brian Brown of the National Organization For Marriage. "What this judge is essentially doing is declaring a new cultural war."
The judge's ruling is limited in scope: It applies only to couples in Massachusetts, and it deals only with federal recognition of gay marriage. It does not limit a state's right to reject another state's gay marriage.
The case is far more narrow than the one pending in California that argues any ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.
But Ohio State University professor Marc Spindelman says the Massachusetts decision may prove to be broadly influential.
"The court's decision doesn't box any other court in, but it's certainly likely to be persuasive authority and virtually certain to have a significant ripple effect," Spindelman says.
That ripple will grow if the Massachusetts decision survives expected challenges and makes it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Obama administration lawyers are not yet commenting but an appeal is likely.
The president opposes DOMA, but administration lawyers say it's their job to defend the law, and they can't pick and choose based on their policy preferences.
As an example of the great links my husband finds...
This article explains one of the very real reasons I am not the musician I used to be. The Kansas City music scene does not support musicians, and that's just a fact.
This is what I do three nights a week, every week. I drive home around 9pm. It's a twenty to thirty minute drive, and it's over the Missouri River. For those of you who live in Kansas City, you know what I'm talking about. Yuck! But I can honestly say that this is a wonderful time for me. For part of an hour, I'm all alone. There's no one asking me for a snack, or if we're there yet. There's no one crying for a pacifier. Nobody is interrupting my thoughts. It's just me and my iPod. And really, part of an hour is all I need to reboot. There's nothing quite like night driving!
I have now tried honey, Sun Crystals, and Stevita. No good. I'm a sugar girl. Thanks for trying, Stevita! It's not your fault you taste terrible!