Blue is the new pink while pink is the new blue – who knew?

Phil Gurnee ♦ May 13, 2017 ♦ 2 Comments

Mind blown over a comment at TBLA tonight. I guess this explains why my grandfather was dressed in pink for his 1902 painting when he was two. I had always wondered.

Ladies’ Home Journal article in June 1918 said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti. In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.

Posted by Bicoastal on May 13, 2017 | 4:45 PM up reply rec flag

Anyway all this pink is symbolically nice but I couldn’t help but wonder if all the cost of outfitting all 30 teams, 25 players, in all that pink couldn’t have been better spent on woman shelters. If you want to honor the Mom’s in your life maybe men should start treating the woman in their lives better.

Just a thought.