Aw, Franklin Roosevelt, you’re such a pretty girl!
I’ve occasionally, but fleetingly, wondered about why it is that all girls seem to like pink so much. When I go into Walmart and I pass by the little girls’ section, I just see pink everywhere. Kinda makes me nauseous tbh. But it’s always seemed kinda arbitrary to me; I couldn’t figure out an evolutionary advantage for women to like pink so much.
Until today, though, I had no idea how on-the-mark I was.
Aw, come on. It’s a scientific-objective fact pink is more girly, just like it took us a few decades to realize we live in a heliocentric solar system, it took us a few decades to figure out blue is more manish than womanish. Females are extroverts and red, especially pink is a more extroverted color. Blue is the color of the sky, the sky is male and the earth is female (rain = semen, dirt = vag). We haven’t thought about switching the colors back for some time, have we? Pink is flamboyant, delicate, extravagant, dramatic – blue is stoic, calm, reserved, wise. It’s just your logic can’t articulate/express what your intuition knows to be objective fact, humpty.
OR perhaps something else is true
Flawless logic, who can argue!?
The girly-boy in the picture is clearly wearing white though. Colour wasn’t even invented then.
Both little boys and girls wore short dresses back then. That’s what made them ‘gender neutral.’ (As they got older, boys ‘graduated’ to short pants and girls to longer skirts, usually mid-calf. Finally, at age 12 or so, a boy got his first pair of trousers and girls got skirts that covered their ankles.) This was, of course, for boys usually among the well-to-do and for special occasions, or when they were seen in public. That’s because the dresses were usually white and must have been a bitch to wash, starch and iron after just one wearing.
trevor,
Yeah, people lived in a black and white world till the 30’s. Pictures don’t lie. It must have been a bitch sorting out the boys-girls when all they had were shades of grey… 
It really depends on where you are. For a long time in Europe, pink was the boy’s color. In the Christian tradition, red is a strong color associated with Jesus (dude bled a lot) and so men had red and boys had a diluted version of that color (pink). On the other hand, look at who is wearing blue in Christian iconography: the mother of Jesus. So girls were associated with the color blue. Consider: in a news clip from a 1927 issue of TIME magazine, "In Belgium, Princess Astrid, consort of the Crown Prince, gave birth a fortnight ago to a 7-lb. daughter. “The cradle… had been optimistically oufitted in pink, the color for boys, that for a girl being blue.”
But it gets more complicated. After all, the Christian tradition is but one of the axes around which European culture rotates. In many pre-Christian cultures (notably the Gauls in France and the Celts in Britain), blue was apotropaic. So boys, being more valuable, got the protective blue covering whereas females were associated with roses (as in “rosebud lips” that Chaucer is always going on about – think Georgia O’Keefe).
But insofar as a casual googling has revealed it was the martial tradition that caused the switch. It makes sense that soldiers need protection, so they got to wear blue. A lot of countries featured blue in their uniforms (Savoy/Italy, France, America, Prussia, some Swedish units, etc.) and since men are soldiers, boys gradually became associated with blue.
I’m sick of all these nihilisms, Xunxian.
yellow and blue (even though they’re opposites) are masculine colors (yellow = sun, blue = sky). The sky is male, it’s on top. The sun is male, obviously. The sun is the most powerful object in our universe. Women (the planets) revolve around the alpha male (the sun). Uranus was male and Gaia (his wife) was female. Uranus = Blue. Helios was male (yellow), Selene (moon/white) female. Green (the earth, Gaia) is a feminine color, pink too (also opposites). The only time pink can be found in nature is on flowers. Flowers are feminine, obviously. Flowers attract insects like bees, which play the role of the masculine in that dance, carrying the seed from flower to wherever. As for red and cyan, they can go either way, really. All the other colors are transexual, with varrying degrees of manesss and womaness. I don’t understand, the job of the philosopher is to make sense of the world, but most of you are only interested in obscuring and obfuscating things.
If Xunzi were here, he’d agree with me, he’d try to find some reason for why things are the way they are, if he couldn’t, Mozi the reformer would construct a new order.
The face your making in your picture is making me unsure if you’re being facetious or not
This goes to show just how cynical and jaded you are. I think it’s time for a new game. Instead of trying to outdo one another in thwarting current conventions, let’s see who can outdo the other at upholding them, or at least at substituting them for a new order. To be honest, at first, I started this as a bit of joke, but now I realize objectivism can be upheld just as easily as nihilism, if not easier. It is time for a new age, all philosophers hitherto have been nothing but logicians and sophists, the 21st century ought to be an age of great systems builders and I am the 1st great system builder of this era. I will lead you to the promised land, look to me.
no
I don’t think there is an inherently greater value to cotton than polyester but I do not think it is nihilistic to point out the different sources from which the two are obtained.
The irony is that this fact is itself part of nihilism. Of course you can uphold an objectivism—indeed, whichever objectivism you want!
Hahaha, I have surpassed all of you, all of you are digging the grave to cultural death, diciples of John Jones, I am the only builder on this site, me and a few others (JSS, TTG), why don’t you critique my ideas… cowardice, you live for your nihilisms, all of you are sketptix, you are symptoms of a culture obsolete, I am the future, I will show you the new way, I am great, yet I dropped out of highschool, but this only reinforces my greateness, the fact that I can keep up with and surpass the likes of you so called educated, I am triumphant, I am objective, I am God. I have challenged authority, but what say you, oh obsolescent ones? What good can come of your quibblings???
Blue is male, challenge, submit or die. If you cannot challenge or reinforce, why are you here? What function do you serve???
I am a nihilist. And I don’t even mean that ironically. So, by all means, build, build, build. They’re only words, right? The sky’s the limit. But don’t let that stop you. ; o )
Your souls are all, already dead. There’s nothing in them to be found. No light. Each of you has given up the quest for meaning, philosophy to you is but an ironic game.
In itself, this claim is easy to challenge: one simply replies, “No, blue is not male.” For in itself, the statement “blue is male” is just an ungrounded assertion, and an ungrounded assertion can be neutralised with an ungrounded assertion to the contrary.
However, in earlier posts, you did provide “grounds”. I will list and challenge both of them.
Lucis: “Blue is the color of the sky, [and] the sky is male[, … as] it’s on top.”
Sauwelios: So whatever is on top is male? A feather on a hat, for instance? Sounds pretty gay to me. Also, you said the earth is female and green, and therefore green is female. But isn’t the earth mostly blue?
Lucis:: “Uranus [the god] was [imagined as] male[. …] Uranus [the planet] = [i.e., is] Blue [i.e., blue].”
Sauwelios: Uranus the god and Uranus the planet are two different things (in fact, the former is just a concept). Also, the Ancients had no way of knowing that the planet was blue. And your reasoning implies that if I were to imagine a female god (in one word, a goddess) and called her after some extrasolar, blue planet (e.g., with a name like HR 8799 e), blue would be both male and female at the same time.
dick heads are pink.