Anyone know why blue has been associated with boys while pink is synonymous with girls? In an attempt to be objective, neither color seems to be more manly or more feminine than the other.
WAG: Pink for girls is because that’s the color of roses, which has been a standard parable for female beauty.
Blue for boys probably for contrast with the pink.
The explanation that I heard was that blue was the most expensive dye available to the general population (ignoring really exorbitant things like Tyrian Purple) in earlier centuries and was therefore reserved for the sons.
Does anyone know how old this “tradition” is, actually? I’ll swear that I once read a short story, set around WWI, that confused the heck out of me because an important point hinged on blue being for GIRLS, and pink for BOYS.
It actually used to be reversed in the US, with pink for boys and baby blue for girls. This changed by about the middle of the 20th century. I don’t whether it was universal or not, but I’ve read several books from around 1920 which preferred the reversed color scheme.
If kellner’s statement is also correct, perhaps that’s why-- the expensive dyes were reserved for the aristocrat’s daughters. In the days of yore, all the nobles dressed pretty flamboyantly, but it’s likely that even then women defined fashion.
We’ve been over this before:
Yes, it was reversed with respect to our current notions at one time.
Blame painters Gainsborough and Lawrence, apparently.