Pink and blue

 The idea that blue is for boys and pink is for girls is actually a relatively recent cultural development, not a historical or biological fact. In fact, before the 20th century, it was quite the opposite in many Western societies.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, babies of both genders were often dressed in white dresses for practicality, as they could be easily bleached.

Around the early 1900s, some sources suggested that pink was for boys because it was a stronger, more assertive color (as a variation of red), while blue was for girls because it was considered more delicate and dainty.

A 1918 article in Earnshaw’s Infants’ Department stated:

“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.”

When and Why It Changed:

The shift happened in the 1940s when American retailers and manufacturers began standardizing pink for girls and blue for boys.

This was largely driven by marketing, as companies found it profitable to gender-segregate clothing and toys.

After World War II, societal expectations reinforced these color associations, especially with the rise of consumer culture.

By the 1980s, with the advancement of prenatal testing (allowing parents to know the baby's gender before birth), companies began aggressively marketing gender-specific clothing, further solidifying the modern color norms.

A Cultural, Not Biological, Norm

These color associations are not universal—other cultures have different traditions.

For example, in some parts of Europe and Asia, blue is still associated with femininity due to its connection to the Virgin Mary.

So, the idea that blue is for girls and pink is for boys was actually once more common, but marketing and social trends reversed it over time.