Answers

84 answer(s)

<< First   < Prev   ...  [4]   [5]   [6]   [7]   [8]   [9]   [10]   ...  Next >   Last >>

Reply	Anonymous says: The current "pink is for girls, blue is for boys" custom seems to have been current since the 1950s. In the early 1900s blue was the colour for girls: it represented peace and serenity and in countries where Roman Catholicism was the main religion, it was the colour of the Virgin Mary. Pink was seen as a weak form of red (the colour of blood and warfare) so it was suitable for boys. The change-around seems to have originated in Germany during the 1930s. By the early 1940s homosexual men in Nazi-run concentration camps were forced to wear triangular pink labels so by this time pink had become an effeminate colour.The current preference of small girls for pink and small boys for blue is due to their picking up visual cues around them and making quick associations as to what is appropriate for their sex. Small girls ape their mothers and small boys their fathers in various activities; they also copy what they see on TV and when they go shopping with their relatives.  (no votes) Tags: unanswered, domestic science, human body.
	posted on 2009-03-21 02:54:00 | Report abuse

Reply	Michael Tiffany says: Sometimes I think that New Scientist's Last Word Blog is just a very clever experiment being conducted by very clever psychologists who pose very clever questions to get people to give very clever answers. For what purpose I don't know... I'm just not that clever.  (no votes) Tags: unanswered, domestic science, human body.
	posted on 2009-03-21 20:00:00 | Report abuse

Reply	Anonymous says: Boys used to wear pink and girls blue but they switched them around to stop boys being taken by changelings. It has remained that way ever since.  (no votes) Tags: transport, human body.
	posted on 2009-03-22 08:15:00 | Report abuse

Reply	MikeM says: There do seem to be some innate gender behaviours in my view. I have a 5 year old son and three year old daughter. My daughter has worn a mixture of her own clothes (variety of colours)and her brother's hand me downs, and her own in a variety colurs inclduing some pink. Now that she is three and is allowed some input into choosing of her cothing she prefers red-based colours and in the case of purples has a clear preference for reddish purples over bluish.Similarly in toys and play from an early age, and without any push from us she has opted for parental role play and has never been interested in cars trucks etc, despite them being available.Her preferences seem to me to be innate, but maybe she is mimicking her mother or was socialised in a previous life ... ..  (no votes) Tags: transport, human body.
	posted on 2009-03-22 23:30:00 | Report abuse

Reply	Anonymous says: From observation of our daughters (4 amp; 2 yrs old), im certain its not nurture.The first daughter we deliberately avoided pink clothes, toys etc. In part because her mother doesnt like pink (she likes blue).From birth she was attracted to yellow and brown toys amp; clothes. Then by about age 1 a strong preference for pink, flowery amp; princessey began (all the very girly stuff), She was begging for it all the time, and we caved. We wondered if it was outside influence (day care?)So our second daughter, who adores the eldest, copies her all the time, was born into a world of mostly pink clothing and pink princess toys. However despite all this exposure at home and day care, she has always had a stronger preference for blue and purple, and also doesnt care much for princess merchandise either way. As an aside we reckon she is a bit tom-boyish based on her love of sports and indifference to girly stuff. (like her mum)So for my kids at least, there doesnt seem to be any external influence I can think of that explains their preferences.  (no votes) Tags: transport, human body.
	posted on 2009-03-23 01:45:00 | Report abuse

<< First   < Prev   ...  [4]   [5]   [6]   [7]   [8]   [9]   [10]   ...  Next >   Last >>