Pink for girls, blue for boys? It wasn’t always so! Bad Science takes a look at the recent news that scientists found a preference for pink in females. The actual experiment involved adults, so it does not solve the genetics-vs-culture question. More surprisingly, according to early 20th century literature, pink should be designated for boys, and blue for girls! Link -via Reddit
picsel
I once read (on colourlovers.com/blog I think) that some decades or maybe more time ago, that was the scheme. Blue for girls and pink for boys. Can’t find the article though.
jodie
i remembered reading that the colors were the reverse at the turn of the century. pink being a derivative of red was considered stronger and therefore a ‘boy’ color. i thought of that as soon as i hear of this new ‘study’. i was hoping that somebody would rebut it with this info. so, hooray! makes you wonder about all the other crap they’re getting grant money to study and then trying to foist their mumbo-jumbo on us, the poor unsuspecting public. don’t believe everything (maybe even anything) you hear.
L
I think I know more girls who prefer blue over pink. And I’ve also heard about that historical preference of pink for boys and blue for girls. Interesting.
Boys used to wear dresses and lace and ringlets in their hair. But many of today’s men don’t want to hear THAT… 
aj
@ Jodie
Social science has always seemed a lot like that to me too. It’s a shame really ’cause there a lot of interesting stuff being done too, its just hard to pick apart from the fluff.
Comment RSS
RSS
Cuimhne
