Quote:
When shopping for baby gifts, everyone knows that blue is for boys and pink is for girls. But now there's evidence that those colors may be more than just marketing gimmicks. According to a new study in the Aug. 21 issue of Current Biology, women may be biologically programmed to prefer the color pink — or, at least, redder shades of blue — more than men.
Read more: Study: Why Girls Like Pink - TIME http://content.time.com/time/health/...#ixzz2t7AAeQaS
|
More here:
http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/sci...urite_research
And the pseudo scientific so-called experts are as bad:
Quote:
This color represents compassion, nurturing and love. It relates to unconditional love and understanding, and the giving and receiving of nurturing.
A combination of red and white, pink contains the need for action of red, helping it to achieve the potential for success and insight offered by white. It is the passion and power of red softened with the purity, openness and completeness of white. The deeper the pink, the more passion and energy it exhibits.
Pink is feminine and romantic, affectionate and intimate, thoughtful and caring. It tones down the physical passion of red replacing it with a gentle loving energy.
|
http://www.empower-yourself-with-col...olor-pink.html
So...how is it that a century ago, pink was the traditional colour for boys in our culture?
And oh look, here we are again: why do they like pink? because they were busy picking berries whilst the boys were hunting mammoth:
Quote:
According to scientists, the simple explanation why do girls like pink so much is that since prehistoric times, the role of a woman was that of a food gatherer and berries were a staple food, along with other nature's produce, for humans back then. Fruits, especially berries, mostly had purplish, reddish or pinkish undertones that signified ripeness. These scientists support the theory that women developed a better color vision than men to spot the rip fruits in a green vegetation by psychologically becoming hard-wired to pick out red and pink over centuries. Also, females easily express emotions and when a woman blushes, her cheeks appear flushed with blood and the color tone of the skin changes to shades of red. Pink is a shade of red too. When a child is sick, even then his/her skin has a reddish undertone. Women pick up on subtle and indirect clues fairly quicker than men and are more in sync with feelings. Since women have basically been nurturers, they are sensitive to all shades of pink and red. For long, the color pink has been associated with beauty and tenderness.
Read more at Buzzle: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/why-d...like-blue.html
|
The article itself is quite good.
I bolded some text there, because, as I mentioned in the What men Want thread I have a particular hatred of the 'it makes sense because of our hunter gatherer past' bullshit argument.
We do not know how our ancient ancestors divided tasks between genders. We have very little actual evidence for men being hunters and women picking berries. Most of what we 'know' about humans of that period is based on modern hunter gatherer societies, a handful of skeletal remains from prehistory and a whole lot of assumptions based on modern conceptions of gender.
What little physical evidence there is (for example skeletal development affected by certain task types like sitting back on your heels and grinding corn) suggest much less of a divide.
On the basis of almost no physical evidence whatsoever, the world has decided that men have always exclusively been the hunters, and women have always roamed about picking berries. yet, in our closest cousins, apes and chimps, both males and females hunt and gather. There is no reason at all to think that only men hunted, or that women all picked berries. Yet that is seen as fact and other stuff like an apparent liking for pink is viewed through that 'truth'.
And oh look: women are carers and more in touch with their feelings than the brutish men who would never notice the red skin of their ailing child.
Give me a fucking break.
The article itself breaks down some of that supposed logic, quite well.
[eta] sorry, that annoyance was not directed at you.