The tradition of associating the color pink with girls and the color blue with boys has become common in many cultures around the world. However, this gender-based color association is relatively modern and has not always been the norm. Let’s take a look at the history behind this color designation, how it came about, and the theories behind why pink and blue became linked to specific genders.
The History of Gendered Colors
For most of human history, color choices for young boys and girls were much more fluid than they are today. In medieval and renaissance Europe, babies of both sexes wore long white dresses and gowns as infants and toddlers. The first “gendered” clothing difference came at around age 6, when young boys would start wearing breeches or pants while girls continued in dresses. Even then, bright colors and decorative elements were common in boys’ and mens’ fashions, and pink was not strictly a “girly” hue.
In fact, the reverse was true in some eras – pink was actually considered a masculine color, while blue was seen as more delicate and dainty for girls. This was the standard in America until around the 1940s. Some sociologists believe this came from the association between pink and the red of a warrior’s blood, while blue had connections to the Virgin Mary in Renaissance art. Cultural norms at different periods influenced which colors were popular and suitable for each gender.
The Rise of Gendered Color Marketing
The 1940s saw a major shift in color marketing thanks to several American department stores and other companies. Retailers like Sears and McCall’s began promoting pink baby clothes and nursery items explicitly for girls, while blue was marketed for boys. By the 1950s, this gender divide was an established norm in the United States, although some European countries took longer to adopt this distinction.
There are several theories behind the mid-century swap to pink for girls and blue for boys in America:
- The influence of iconic First Lady Mamie Eisenhower, who wore pink dresses and decorated in pink.
- Visibility of pink as a fresh, exciting new color for fabrics thanks to new synthetic dyes.
- Backlash against ambiguously gendered infants after the relative informality of the 1930s and 40s.
- Increased mass-marketing and consumerism, with department stores driving gendered purchasing.
Whatever the reasons, retailers found that separating products along gender lines allowed them to essentially double their children’s clothing and nursery decor markets. The divide stuck, to the point where today “pink aisle” and “blue aisle” are common marketing terms.
Biological Preferences Theory
In more recent decades, some scientists have proposed that there may be biological or evolutionary components to human color preferences. Some studies have found patterns in male and female responses:
- Women across cultures tend to prefer warmer, reddish colors like pink and purple.
- Men gravitate towards cooler, bluish colors like blue and green.
Researchers theorize this may stem back to our hunter-gatherer past. Females needed to be attuned to ripening fruits and berries, while males who were hunters had to be able to spot prey or enemies hiding in the blue-green landscape. This predilection then carried forward as a natural preference in modern humans.
However, many psychologists dispute these findings as cultural influences rather than innate biological ones. Furthermore, when colors are dissociated from gender norms, as with very young infants, these differences in color preference are not reliably seen.
Regional and Cultural Variations
While the pink and blue gender divide is well-established in the United States, this is not a universal standard across all world cultures. Here are some regional and national variations:
| Country | Girl Color | Boy Color |
|---|---|---|
| Belgium | Yellow | Blue |
| Poland | Green | Blue |
| Mexico | Pink | Blue |
| South Korea | Red, Pink | Blue |
| Japan | Pink, Red | Black |
There are also generational shifts happening in recent decades:
- Millennials are more open to cross-gender colors, e.g. pink for boys.
- Gen Z often associates pink with femininity and avoids it, picking new statement colors.
Additionally, many cultures assign multiple meanings to the same color. White is used both for girls and boys depending on the specific context and type of clothing.
Developing Gender Identity Through Color
Why has the pink vs blue gender color scheme persisted so strongly in America, despite its relatively short history? Gender stereotypes around clothing and appearance are reinforced consistently from birth through adulthood:
- Nurseries decorated specifically in pink or blue based on a baby’s sex.
- Gifts like clothes and toys given in gendered colors.
- Media and marketing associating girls with pink objects.
- Peer pressure, clothing norms and hair/makeup rules in girl and boy social groups.
- Wives and girlfriends wearing pink as an extension of traditional femininity.
This amount of social conditioning makes an impact on children’s sense of self. Researchers have found that gender color coding of objects shapes behavior in children as young as 24 months. Exposure to gendered colors can activate stereotypical thinking about gender roles and identity.
Moving Away From Binary Gender Colors
In recent years, some parents and organizations have pushed back against the ingrained pink and blue divide as too limiting and stereotypical. Here are some signs of change:
- Rise in gender-neutral clothing and nurseries using colors like yellow and green.
- Brands offering the same items like shoes or backpacks in colors for all genders.
- Parents allowing boys to wear pink shirts or girls to wear science/math tee in blue.
- Rainbow-themed clothes as a transgender-inclusive alternative.
There has also been strong criticism of the lack of merchandise featuring female characters and role models in STEM and action/adventure media marketed towards boys. By expanding color and product choices, companies can help reinforce that any child’s interests and potential are not defined by their biological sex.
Conclusion
While pink and blue are still frequently used as shortcuts to convey gender in our culture, this color divide is neither universal nor historically ingrained. The modern association only solidified in the mid-20th century due to marketing and consumerism. Biological theories around innate color preferences are also disputed and inconclusive. There is a growing movement towards gender-neutral child rearing and expanding color options to boys and girls of all interests.
Color is one visible frontier where stereotypes and limitations on children’s identity are reinforced. By understanding the cultural construct behind pink and blue gender coding, we can work to move beyond these arbitrary divisions and more fully embrace the wonderful range of colors, clothing, and interests loved by kids of all genders.
