October 16, 2007


Whilst out shopping a few nights ago, Elsha was perusing baby clothes as we are now (again) Uncle and Aunty once more. I, of course, spent my time wisely checking out dvds and eventually came across a small copy of "Wild Palms" by Oliver Stone. I had the videos when they appeared on BBC 2 years ago (1990?) but threw them out when we moved to Australia. As it was quite a cheap price, it seemed good value for money, even if I never get around to watching it; I still have Team America, Forbidden Planet and Hitchcock's Rear Window to watch first.

Anyway, back to the baby shopping. Standing in front of a whole set of clothing, it occured to me - why are boy's clothes blue and girl clothes pink?

According to various websites, the blue used is actually quite a dainty, and not a strong vivid, colour therefore it's much more suited to girls. Pink, on the other hand, is a watered down red, and therefore much more standout-ish. This was very much the case before the 1950's. Boys were dressed in strong pink, girls clothed in dainty light blue.
Interestingly enough, whilst the rest of the Western world have adopted the boys = blue and girls = pink colouring, the Belgians have remained the same; that is, they are in reverse.

There are various theories posted on the interent about why this is - dyes in china being rarer for boys, an evolutionary preference for specific colours or just "because its always been that way"...

...if you have an answer, please let me know :)

No comments: