Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. This article seems to base it's claims on evolutionary psychology, which is considered bulltrout by most scholars, but is somehow still gobbled up by pop science magazines. People love to get confirmation that the stereotypes they have are somehow ingrained in their biology, which is a false claim, as one closer look at gender roles in different indigenous tribes proves that gender roles (and, by extension, color-coding) are, in fact, purely culturalOriginally Posted by Old Manus
I've always been skeptical about this claim whenever I've read it, and have never seen any hard evidence suggesting things were the other way around. After a bit of googling, this article seems to agree.Fun fact: boys wearing blue and girls wearing pink is a really new thing. It started around the fifties, from what I remember. Before that, it was the other way around, because baby blue was more often associated with the Virgin Mary, while pink was the only acceptable shade of red (considered masculine) for boys because it did not bring blood to mind.
I'm writing my MA on gender issues in linguistics and have read quite a few actual scientific books. So yeah, don't believe everything that confirms your beliefs.
Reply With Quote