[Troll King]

(10-31-2014 01:23 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(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.

I have to agree. Feminists like to take the smallest grain of truth and warp it to their ideological goals. It is actually pretty amazing at the amount of bullshit they can create and spread with just a few Academics. As I have said for some time, feminists and their bullshit lies and half-truths are a priori evidence that women shouldn't be allowed in academia or any place where they can influence much of anything (yeah, yeah, NAWALT or whatever).


Historically, dyes were difficult to come by and it was even harder to find plants to make good dyes that would give deep and rich colors that would last and not fade.

Then a number of plants, from what I remember of my art classes, were found to make dyes and paints that had deep and rich colors. This was mainly blues and some purples and dark reds/maroons.

These became the colors associated with royalty due to their expense and rarity. Also, it wasn't usually the queens that wore a lot of heavy blue and purple but the Kings. So, yeah...bullshit.

As far as the half-truth goes. Go and look at some paintings of men's dress during Victorian ages. It was very feminine with stockings and platforms and laces and what not. I have a few theories on it but I honestly do not know enough about that time period to say anything with certainty. My guess though, is that, revolves around men, or a large segment of men, becoming more feminine during those periods. Or maybe it was seen as somewhat masculine.

Hell, maybe back then it was a darker red that faded to pink over the centuries giving us a skewed perspective on it??? Who knows.

Also, another half-truth feminists have been parroting the last few years goes something like this: "before the 19th and 20th century boys and girls both wore dress as children and it wasn't until a boy became a man that he wore patriarchal pants to denote his oppressive and privileged status...blah blah blah."

There is actually some truth to this. If you were to go back in time 150 years and look at my poor ancestors, or even the middle class ones, living in the south and Appalachia areas you would probably see that the boys and girls both wore skirts/dresses of sorts until about the age of 8-12.

The reason for this is due to the fact that it was extremely expensive to buy pants. Most men would only have a few pairs of pants and they would have their women, or sometimes do it themselves...there is a reason why the army taught you how to hem and sow, repair the pants on a regular basis.

It simply wasn't economical, unless you were extremely wealthy, to buy a new pair of pants every few months so that your "little patriarch" could walk around in mud or shit in his oppressive clothing.

So, for most families they would buy their sons their first pair of pants when the boys growth started to slow down. Buy it a few sizes larger, or actually I think they sold what you might call starter pants that could be let out and let down a few times a year, and just keep them hemmed. Around this time the girls would get their first couple of dresses for family gatherings and church and so on.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...et_004.jpg