Hi, I'm A Pink. And You?

 “Oh god, this gender neutral yellow looks horrible!”

If you’re a How I Met Your Mother fan, you probably watched Mystery versus History, the sixth episode this season where a pregnant Lily and Marshall try to decide whether they want to know their baby’s sex or not. Opting for the latter, they begin painting the baby’s room yellow, while Barney tries to convince them to open the envelope with the answer and just find out. His argument? Without a guiding sex, their kid would get something akin to a sack-jumpsuit as a gift at the baby shower, while a baby boy might get a neat baseball uniform, and a girl, a sparkling princess’ gown.

They mull over it, one way or the other, when finally, inadvertently, they come to know it’s a boy. Kevin, who’s been painting, rushes out, relieved and grateful for the knowledge. “I’ll get the blue paint!”

Source: Mumbai Paused [www.mumbaipaused.blogspot.com]

It’s not just paint however, enter any toy store and the dichotomy hits you: there’s a pink aisle stuffed with pink toys purportedly suitable for girls- dolls, kitchen sets, fashion kits and the like. The blue side of the boys has cars, action figures and experiment kits. The message is clear. Dear nine year old girl, you and your pink Barbie [perfectly manicured], with her pink car, pink washing machine and pink dog leash better stay away from anything that involves thinking. Shush. You’re the hapless damsel in distress. You need Prince Charming to rescue you. Meanwhile, here’s a hair braiding kit. Look good for him, will you?

Source: The Sociological Cinema [https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Sociological-Cinema/126283397438959]

Roses are red, violets are blue

Things get interesting when you notice that till the mid 19^th century, there was no gender based division of colours, with white frilly dresses for all infants,  and the first division, in the early 1910s when this trend of assigning colours started, was in fact, the very opposite. In 1918, the Earnshaw's Infants’ Department reported, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger colour, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Hue Colour Consulting says this also had a biblical rationale:

"Originally, pink was designated for boys, as it was thought to be the stronger colour. In Christian tradition, red was associated as male, and its ‘little’ sibling pink was used for boys. Blue was associated the Virgin Mary and therefore considered feminine.”

So how did we get to macho blues and dainty pinks? The switch is sometimes attributed to the usage of the colour blue for men’s uniforms during the First World War and the adoption of blue as the norm for boys by American manufacturers, with pink chosen as the standard for girls. However, the problem with either of these categorizations is a fundamental one. As Polly Curtis from The Guardian, UK reported, these are convenient assignments without an underlying thought to whether there really exists a difference in the colour preferences of infants at birth. Studies show that infants under the age of two, regardless of sex, prefer pinker tones, making a case for nurture forcing these preferences later in life, rather than nature.

Which begs the question, if we’re all born pink lovers, why are men wearing pink “asking to be made fun of?” The answer is simple maths, really...

... I don’t know much about algebra (but I know)

One plus one equals two

There’s commercial sense in furthering the pink-blue divide. Make the same infant outfit in two different colours, and you’re assured that a parent will buy the second colour for a younger child of the opposite sex, rather than reuse the elder ones. In fact, with urban disposable incomes rising as they are today, parents with children of different sexes are likely to buy not only whole sets of clothes anew, but also sex-appropriate games, wallpaper and hobby class subscriptions.

 The rising commercial success of these products leads to greater societal acceptance of such norms, which then creates social pressure to abide by them. Parents fret on seeing sons play with soft, cuddly, “feminine” toys. Girls who’re tomboyish may “grow to be” lesbians [the horror!].

With such colour appropriateness taking precedence over just letting children be, we’re setting the stage for a society where kids are going to be burdened with gnawing doubts before taking the smallest step out of the narrow circle of propriety we’ve established. They’re just colours, not missives of potential or nature or success. Let’s let them be that.

If you’d like to take this forward, and see how you can contribute, be sure to check out this Facebook album on the SPARK Summit page.