Some commentators now believe pink dominates the upbringing of little girls, and this may be damaging. Sue Palmer, author of Toxic Childhood, says the "total obsession" with pink stunts girls' personalities. "I am very worried about it. You can't find girls over the age of three who aren't obsessed with the colour. It's under their skin from a very early age and severely limits choices, and decisions.More details at the BBC link. I think this concern is kind of silly, but I'll defer to more experienced parents. What most interested me was the following historical bit about color and gender; I had no idea the colors were reversed a century ago:
"We have got to get something done about the effect marketeers are having. We are creating little fluffy pink princess, an image of girliness, that is very specific and which some girls don't want to go along with, but due to overwhelming peer pressure, are having to conform to."
Enter any toy store or children's clothing department and it's easy to spot the gender divide - one side is floor-to-ceiling pink, the other camouflage shades with the odd dash of orange and blue. Hence discussion boards on parenting websites bemoan the fact it is "impossible" to buy any other colour for girls.
How different it was in the early 1900s, when blue was for girls and pink for boys.
The Women's Journal explained it thus: "That pink being a more decided and stronger colour, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl."
DressMaker magazine agreed. "The preferred colour to dress young boys in is pink. Blue is reserved for girls as it is considered paler, and the more dainty of the two colours, and pink is thought to be stronger (akin to red)."
What prompted the switch is unclear, but it had been made by the time Adolf Hitler ordered the classification of homosexuals. Those deemed "curable" were sent to concentration camps and labelled with a pink triangle. This suggests that by then, pink was associated with femininity.