The Times today,article on gender neutral parenting.

[TheTimesMNer]

Thought you may be interested!!!

Yeah, well, it's buying into the idea that feminine things are inferior. I hate baby pink because of the gender definition it seems to represent though - how it is part of a culture that defines what girls and boys are like.

Why did DP get banned? I missed it too.

I think so. Pink is a fantastic colour, which is why we naturally like it. As snowflake69 says both the boys and girls fight over getting the pink cups because they stand out and are so attractive. It is only later that boys are dissuaded from choosing pink in order to differentiate themselves from girls. Pink is a powerful colour, and Barbara Cartland, probably the foremost proponent of pink, was a very successful and remarkable woman. Liking pink didn't hold her back.

notjustapotforsoup wrote - "It was only in the last 80-100 years that pink became the colour for girls."

Indeed, but not only that. Before then, pink was regarded as a masculine, boys colour. Blue was the feminine, girl's colour. It varies not only with time but also with culture.

A quote from the Ladies' Home Journal (1918):

"the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl."

fascinating vesuvia. It shows that it is cultural, simply in order to differentiate girls and boys.

Why did it change round? Do we know? Was it simply for commercial reasons? to force everyone to restock all their pink and blue clothes and toys?

Pink for boys because Red was such a masculine colour, possibly linked to Hunting jackets?

thanks TheTimesMNer that has set me off on a search. It started in about the 1920s with pink for boys (since pink was a strong watered down red colour and associated with masculinity). Blue is a colour associated with the Virgin Mary, don't know why that is, interesting if anyone knows why, so blue was the colour for girls. After the war it changed round, basically for commercial reasons, as pink was promoted to women to match lipstick and blushers.

Before that all children were usually dressed in white or possibly blue.

Some alternative explanations are

"
In almost every culture, one stereotype emerges: pink is associated with girls, blue with boys. Unfortunately, there is no consensus of opinion on its origin.

According to Jean Heifetz, for centuries, all European children were dressed in blue because the color was associated with the Virgin Mary. The use of pink and blue emerged at the turn of the century, the rule being pink for boys, blue for girls. Since pink was a stronger color it was best suited for boys; blue was more delicate and dainty and best for girls. And in 1921, the Women's Institute for Domestic Science in Pennsylvania endorsed pink for boys, blue for girls. (When Blue Meant Yellow. pp. 20 -21)

One could argue that contemporary color symbolism confirms these associations. Blue is considered a calm, passive color, hence feminine. Red (pink derived from red) is considered active hence masculine.

On the other hand, the idea of associating blue with male babies may stem back to ancient times when having a boy was good luck. Blue, the color of the sky where gods and fates lived, held powers to ward off evil, so baby boys where dressed in blue. In Greece a blue eye is still thought to have powers to ward off evil. The idea of pink for girls might come from the European legend that baby girls were born inside delicate pink roses.

Another theory states that the sexual origins can be found in ancient China. At a time when certain dyes were quite rare, pink dye was readily available and therefore inexpensive. Since blues were rare and expensive, it was therefore considered to be more worthwhile to dress your son in blue, because when he married the family would receive a dowry."

Blue is associated with the Virgin Mary because of its links with heaven and she is the Queen of Heaven and earth.

White is also associated with the Virgin Mary to symbolise her purity and virginity.

I thought the blue association with the Virgin Mary was because blue paints - made with lapis lazuli - were more costly, and medieval painters used them on the most important figures in the painting.

yes I read that too Indelible. Though apparently in Germany, they often used red paint for the Virgin Mary.

I didn't know that about German paintings - interesting!

It seems that it goes back to Greek Byzantine iconography, where she was depicted in blue and also in red

"Mary's dark blue mantle, from about 500 A.D., is of Byzantine origin and is the color of an empress."

Blue has stayed in vogue, but red has also become a prominent color for Mary as represented by artists since the 10th century. Blue calls to mind the color of the skies (which is not only limited to light blue), and red is the color of kings, Roten says. "However, there are a great variety of blues and other colors for Mary," he says. "For example, Flemish painters prefer blue, while German painters have a preference for red."

Regarding Mary represented with a red mantle:

As to the red mantle worn by Our Lady -- this isn't so rare either. Rogier van der Weyden, Hans Memling, Lucas Cranach, Geertgen tot sin Jans, Jan van Eyck but also sometimes Eastern iconography (mosaic, Chora monastery, 14th c) shows Mary cloaked in a red mantle. True, the classical tradition shows her with a red robe and a blue mantle as for example almost all Raphael Madonnas and those inspired by Raphael (Nazarenes). The red color in iconography points (early on) to nobility and elevated state, and conveys sometimes in northern Renaissance, in particular, an anticipation of suffering and passion, especially when related to the devotion of the heart as seems to be the case with the Christ image.

Marian artist Beverly Stoller works from her "Theotokos" art studio in Fairfield, Conn. She says a recent interest in iconography has led her to discover a new color scheme for Mary, based on historical representation in icons. Icons of Mary often show her wearing a greenish-blue inner garment with a red outer garment, Stoller says.

What point are you making harpy?

I don't know TSH you'd have to ask them.

Some doctoring is pretty much like plumbing when it comes down to it

Oh right, well that's not particularly what the author is discussing here.

I presumed the parents were just happy that their kids ambitions had raised from marrying wealth to gaining it independently in a respectable job tbh! It sounds like you're just nit picking.

TSH, where on earth did you get such a narrow view of feminism [sigh]

I don't know which feminists you've been talking to TSH. I'd be very happy if my DDs wanted to go into a respected and skilled trade, which can be highly lucrative, such as plumbing.

The point the people in the article were making is that their DD moved from an ambition to marry someone wealthy, to wanting to earn her own money. Why are you trying to shoehorn a negative spin onto that? Would that girls parents have been as happy if she has said she wanted to become a plumber? You really would have to ask them. I find it strange that you assume that they wouldn't. What's wrong with plumbing?

thank you for posting this article - i really got alot from reading that and will be showing it to dh for a discussion. as the mum of a dd i am constantly horrified by gender segregation. what it cuts right down to for me is that boy children are stereotyped as assertive and brave and girl children as passive and warm and fuzzy.

the more i observe parenting the more i realise that feminism is by no means a battle which has been won. not when ELC see the need to sell pink football goal post sets. i ask you.