Think about it, traditionally women did less outdoor work, got less exposure to the sun, and therefore had less of the reddish color that that would impart.

Also until recently men would do more physically intensive labor (hunter) while women would do less (gatherer) also increasing the males' reddish skin tones because of the flush associated with heavy physical labor. (I am not saying women did less work, just that the type women did was less likely to make a woman flush for all you trollies out there.)

So is it really any wonder that reddish undertones are more recognized as 'male', we've had centuries of conditioning for it.

And this also begs the question... if your undertone is actually neither green nor red, but bronze... well, does that make me a hermaphrodite? 'Cuz last time I looked, I didn't have any extra... er, appendages.

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=238733

Red was traditionally a male color, and as it faded to pink it was handed down to younger and younger males until infant boys were swaddled in the cloths.

Blue, considered a more delicate color was a preferred choice for women.

Go figure.

Eliminating subjects who are unable to differentiate color does not void the study. Using subjects who couldn't tell the difference between the pictures they were seeing would skew the results, however. It's like this: A certain percent of the population is unable to run, for whatever reason. Eliminating these subjects form a study on running shoes would just make sense, right?

One out of Six men is color blind.

That means that 18% of men were NOT studied for this test.

If 18% of women were eliminated for a test it would be invalidated just like this one should.