I'm amused by this piece about
pink v. blue for kids. Shows how acceptable norms change over time. Amusing as hell that pink was THE masculine color, and blue was the dainty color, in times past.
We find the look unsettling today, yet social convention of 1884, when FDR was photographed at age 2 1/2, dictated that boys wore dresses until age 6 or 7, also the time of their first haircut. Franklin’s outfit was considered gender-neutral.
Reminds me of pictures of my late 100-year-old grandpa, with his long locks and in his dress, seated next to his big brother in an old Victorian portrait.
a Ladies’ Home Journal article in June 1918 said, “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 color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.
In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.
Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s, as a result of Americans’ preferences as interpreted by manufacturers and retailers. “It could have gone the other way,” Paoletti says.
Bahah! It's just amusing how such an arbitrary thing becomes written in stone like that. So many things are like this. The loss of "neutral" fashions is likely a key component, too, although who wants to look "neutral," truly?
