Pink is for Boys, Blue is for Girls

In June 1918 the trade publication Earnshaw’s Infants’ Department wrote:

“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.”

In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.

Blue signified water and calm (which is why the Virigin Mary so often was depicted in a blue dress), while pink and red symbolized fire and aggression. Pink did not become a girl’s color until the 1940s.

This is all about culture, not nature.

Trans Express: Why was Pink for Boys and Blue for Girls?
Smithsonian Magazine: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink?
Jeremy Mohler: ‘Traditional’ Gender Roles Aren’t What You Think They Are

Painting by Ivan Khrutsky.

Why was Pink for Boys and Blue for Girls?

Until the early 20th century parents dressed up their kids with the same type of clothes: White dresses.

To the extent pink was a gendered color, it was understood as male. After all: Pink and red were the colors of fire and power. Blue, on the other hand reflected water and calm, and therefore better suited for gilrs.

The photo below is of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who grew up to become one of America’s greatest presidents. Basically all children were dressed as girls.