Subscribe to Gifts and Dec
RSS
Email

Share this on
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter

Pink: A not so ladylike color

March 14, 2010

I told my friends at the Strong National Museum of Play about my interest in gender based colors; specifically my surprise that pink has only been a “girl’s color” in recent decades. As a result, Chris Bensch, Vice President of Collections at the Strong, has been keeping his eyes open on the subject and sent me an interesting piece from the online magazine Slate.

Entitled, “Pink is for Battleships, a history of a decidedly unladylike color,” it contains some interesting pictures and commentary on pink’s history as a male color.  What caught my eye, however, was the notion that the use of pink and blue to differentiate boys and girls baby clothes was a trend wholly invented by the clothing industry.

It seems that baby clothes used to be white. Most were handmade and it was easier to hand down the same clothes from boy to girl to boy baby (remember they used to have big families) then to make new ones.  

Then store bought clothes came into fashion and between World War I and II everything changed.  Here is how author Jude Stewart puts it:

"In the prosperous era between World Wars, mothers switched from homespun to manufactured baby clothes. Merchandisers liked how color-coding babies’ clothes bolstered sales—after all, whatever rule you were following, color-coding meant you couldn’t dress little Johnny in Sally’s hand-me-downs. Department stores began competing to establish a color-coding rule: In 1927, Wanamaker’s in Philadelphia, Marshall Field’s in Chicago, and Maison Blanche in New Orleans all pushed pink for girls, but other stores—Macy’s and Franklin Simon of Manhattan and Bullock’s of Los Angeles—positioned pink as a boy’s color."

Then, after World War II, the color pink emerged as the girl’s color. It makes you think that if a bunch of department stores could have that kind of impact on gender, think what would happen if Wal-Mart took a position on something so essential to how we see ourselves. Or, come to think of it, maybe they do and we are just are too immersed in our own culture to see it.

Posted by Richard Gottlieb on March 14, 2010 | Comments (2)

March 17, 2010
In response to: Pink: A not so ladylike color
BabyGoGo commented:

Very interesting the impact that industry has on culture. At a time when people are trying to reduce consumerism for budgetary and environmental reasons, shouldn't we make a statement by buying more toys and clothing in gender-neutral colors?


March 17, 2010
In response to: Pink: A not so ladylike color
Grammar Cop: Badge #378 commented:

Interesting, but less so because of the mixup with "then" instead of "than" in the third paragraph.

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement
Playthings Marketing Module
Advertisement
Atlanta Virtual Tours
NEWSLETTERS
eletter_callout_box_GDA


About Us   |   Advertise   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   Subscription   |   Industry Links   |   RSS
© 2012 Sandow Media LLC.All rights reserved.
Use of this website is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy