[AnonymousBosch]

(10-31-2014 11:58 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

I call bullshit. If I'm not mistaken this "pink used to be a masculine color" argument is a recent invention by a couple of feminist "scholars" who are just trying to muddy up the gender waters. The goal, of course, is to make it seem that all indicators of gender and sexuality are simply "social constructions." There a lot of books about how guys used to take it in the ass and then consider themselves straight. That's just more of the same.

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, friend. Gender weirdos are constantly editing articles there to inject their bizarre, mentally ill world views into the public psyche.

Exactly. It's feminists doing what they always do, presenting feels as fact, and anything gender-related on Wikipedia is a waste of time due to their deliberate organised targeting to conform to their feminist dogma.

This article is interesting.

Pink Blue Reversal: A Scientific Urban Legend?

Some highlights:

Quote:

The reader may be surprised to learn that Paoletti herself never endorsed the PBR in her own articles and books. Rather, she made the weaker claim that the gender coding of pink and blue was inconsistent — not reversed — at the beginning of the twentieth century and that the current pink-blue convention only became dominant in the 1950s (Paoletti, 1987, 1997, 2012).

Quote:

While these excerpts seem consistent with the PBR (and/or Paoletti’s weaker claims), there is no way to tell how representative they are of the broader cultural norms of their time. For example, gender color-coding was explicitly targeted by early twentieth century feminist writers (see Paoletti, 1987); some of these excerpts may reflect deliberate attempts to weaken or subvert existing conventions, rather than the existence of alternative conventions.

The whole thing is worth a read.