Originally people used to dress male babies in red, because it was the colour of blood, war, strength, etc...
And female babies in blue, because it was the colour of peace, the sky, etc...
Around the 1960s when the feminists started to push for gender neutral clothes among other things, some of them made a campaign asking major companies (for example Sears catalog) to instead use the colours inverted, red for girls, and blue for boys, just to force some 'equality'
The campaign sort of worked, but flew way over people heads, they just started to assume red (and later pink as a softer tone of red for babies) and blue (and later light blue, for same reasons as pink) were the colours of female and male babies, without knowing why...
The feminists that created the switch, wrote several articles and papers claiming these gendered baby clothes were oppressive and existed to control women... I wonder after the colours just switched, what they think.
As I understood it, all kids used to wear grey/white dress gowns that were easily bleachable and reusable and able to be passed down.
And then marketing companies decided that it was better if they imposed a cultural norm that if you have a boy and a girl, you need to buy two different outfits for each.
Similar to the only raison d'etre of absolutely stupid gendered products like shaving razors and deodorant.
I suspect that it was the clothing industry that figured they could sell more by hooking different product to genders earlier on, and marketing basically facilitated that push.
Particularly after WW1 various industries that had massively scaled up to feed the war needed an outlet for their excess production capacity.
This lead to a marketing push to get people to think in terms of desires rather than needs.
Adam Curtis goes over this during his documentary series, The Century of the Self.
Do you have any source for this? I've heard about pink being considered masculine and blue feminine, but I've never heard about this feminist campaign, and frankly it sounds unlikely.
Originally people used to dress male babies in red, because it was the colour of blood, war, strength, etc...
And female babies in blue, because it was the colour of peace, the sky, etc...
Around the 1960s when the feminists started to push for gender neutral clothes among other things, some of them made a campaign asking major companies (for example Sears catalog) to instead use the colours inverted, red for girls, and blue for boys, just to force some 'equality'
The campaign sort of worked, but flew way over people heads, they just started to assume red (and later pink as a softer tone of red for babies) and blue (and later light blue, for same reasons as pink) were the colours of female and male babies, without knowing why...
The feminists that created the switch, wrote several articles and papers claiming these gendered baby clothes were oppressive and existed to control women... I wonder after the colours just switched, what they think.