Skip to Content

When did blue for a boy start?

The tradition of associating the color blue with baby boys and the color pink with baby girls is a relatively modern phenomenon in Western culture. While these color preferences weren’t established until the 20th century, the history of gendered colors goes back centuries.

The History of Gendered Colors

Throughout much of history, baby boys and girls were both dressed in white, since this was the easiest color to bleach and keep clean. It wasn’t until the mid-19th century that gendered infant clothing started to emerge.

In the late 1700s and early 1800s, there were some general color associations:

  • Blue: Delicacy, beauty, virtue
  • Pink: Strength, vitality
  • White: Purity, innocence

However, these connections weren’t strictly gendered. One text from the time declared blue was for girls and pink was for boys, the opposite of current norms.

Starting in the 1840s and 1850s, clothing for older children became more gendered. Boys wore pants and girls wore dresses. But babies still wore flowing white gowns for both genders.

By the 1890s and early 1900s, there was a growing effort to distinguish boy and girl infant clothing and reinforce gender roles. Department stores started selling gendered layette sets with pink for girls and blue for boys.

When Did Pink and Blue Become Associated with Girls and Boys?

While the trend toward gendered infant clothing began in the late 1800s, pink and blue weren’t firmly established for girls and boys until after World War II.

Here’s a look at how the colors became codified over time:

  • Early 1900s: Pink and blue gender associations were inconsistent. Some sources said blue was for girls and pink was for boys, while others said the opposite.
  • 1920s-1940s: Pink became more strongly associated with girls, but wasn’t an absolute rule. Blue remained a common color for girls.
  • 1940s-1950s: Manufacturers settled on pink for girls and blue for boys as the standard, driven by marketing. Gendered clothing, including pink for girls, became viewed as a sign of proper parenting.
  • 1960s onward: Pink and blue become entrenched as the gendered colors. Alternatives fall out of favor as improper or impractical.

Here’s a more detailed look at what drove the pink and blue gender divide.

1920s-1940s: Pink for Girls Becomes More Common

In the first few decades of the 20th century, pink started to become more associated with girls:

  • A June 1918 article from Earnshaw’s Infants’ Department said blue was “a much more delicate and dainty tone” for girls while pink was “more suitable for the boy.”
  • A 1927 Time magazine article included pink in a list of colors for girls, while blue was “for boys.”
  • A 1934 Ladies’ Home Journal article said pink was “a more decided and smarter color” for girls, though not all experts agreed.

However, this wasn’t an absolute rule. Blue dresses and pink accents for boys were still common into the early 1930s and 1940s. But the forces of marketing and gender norms were starting to push toward pink for girls.

1940s-1950s: Pink and Blue Become Codified as Gender Colors

In the post-war era, manufacturers worked to reinforce traditional gender roles. Clothing and goods for infants became highly gendered, causing pink and blue to become indelibly associated with girls and boys respectively.

Department stores started categorizing blue layettes for boys and pink layettes for girls in promotions and advertisements. This was driven by:

  • Parents wanting to explicitly gender differentiate their children in a conformist era.
  • Retailers looking for marketing opportunities through gendered products.
  • Psychologists advocating dressing children according to gender norms.

By the 1950s, pink for girls and blue for boys was seen as natural and universal, even though the association had only solidified in the previous decade.

1960s Onward: Pink and Blue Become Entrenched

As the women’s rights movement gained ground in the 1960s and 1970s, some pushed back against strictly gendered clothing colors. But retailers largely resisted attempts to make children’s clothing more gender neutral.

Department stores claimed that neutral clothing didn’t sell because most parents wanted to dress girls in pink and boys in blue. Some psychologists warned that gender neutral clothing could be developmentally damaging.

By the 1980s, almost all baby clothes and products were pink for girls and blue for boys. Alternatives fell solidly out of the mainstream.

Today, the pink and blue gender divide remains deeply ingrained. Even as gender norms change, few retailers or parents choose neutral clothing colors for babies and young children.

Why Were Pink and Blue Chosen as Gender Colors?

Pink and blue became linked with girls and boys largely through the influence of marketing and consumer culture, not because of any inherent meaning in the colors themselves.

Here are some key reasons pink and blue emerged as the dominant gender colors:

  • Distinction: Department stores realized they could sell more products by marketing identical items in different colors for boys and girls.
  • Symbolism: Pink was seen as an appropriately delicate shade for girls in an era when gender differences were strongly reinforced.
  • Marketing: Associating pink with girls gave retailers a new avenue to promote products to female consumers.
  • Conformity: Many parents started preferring the gendered colors as they came to be seen as part of proper parenting.

While some connected pink’s reddish hue to bold masculinity and blue’s cool tone to soft femininity, these color attributes were made to match the gender associations rather than creating them.

How Common is Gendered Coloring Today?

While individual opinions vary, pink and blue remain deeply entrenched as the gender colors in most modern Western societies:

  • In a survey from 2020, over 90% of respondents associated pink with girls and blue with boys.
  • Analysis of online baby registries in the U.S. found over two-thirds explicitly ask for blue items for boys and pink items for girls.
  • Studies show parents today are even more likely than in the past to dress girls in pink and boys in blue from a young age.

However, the prevalence does vary somewhat by region and generation:

  • European countries tend to be more flexible than the U.S., with more neutral colors for infants.
  • Older generations report being less strict about gendered colors than younger parents.
  • Rural areas see more conformity to traditional gender norms than urban areas.

Despite some loosening at the edges, the pink and blue gender divide remains the overwhelming norm. Even when parents allow some opposite gender colors, rooms and clothes are still predominantly pink for girls and blue for boys.

Are Gendered Colors Reinforced in Other Ways?

Beyond just clothing and decor, the pink and blue gender divide is reinforced through marketing and product design:

  • Toy packaging is almost universally pink for girls’ toys and blue for boys’.
  • Children’s books and media also use these color-coded signals.
  • Party supplies, bedding, school supplies and other kids’ products are split along pink and blue gender lines.

Products explicitly labeled as “for boys” or “for girls” nearly always use blue and pink color schemes respectively. This constant signaling through design and marketing maintains rigid associations between pink/girls and blue/boys.

Does Gendered Coloring Create Stereotypes?

Critics argue that imposing gendered colors like pink and blue promotes harmful gender stereotypes. Some research supports this, finding that:

  • Gendered toys and colors reinforce traditional roles and activities for girls and boys.
  • Pink spaces make girls feel like certain subjects, like math, are not meant for them.
  • Splitting objects into color-coded feminine and masculine categories promotes in-group bias and signals exclusion.

However, other researchers find little evidence that gendered colors directly limit children’s abilities or potential. The effects likely depend on broader social context.

There is stronger evidence that using gender labels, like explicitly labeling toys as “for girls” or “for boys”, promotes more stereotyping than color alone.

Have Any Alternatives Emerged?

While pink and blue still dominate, some alternatives have gained ground:

  • Gender neutral themes: Yellow, green, gray and multicolor schemes avoid masculine or feminine coding.
  • Purple: Blending pink and blue, purple sometimes signals gender neutral options.
  • Rainbow: The rainbow flag signals LGBTQ inclusiveness as a gender-nonconforming alternative.

However, even these alternatives often end up gendered. Rainbows get used for girls and purple defaults to girls because of its pink tones. Gender neutral designs are still relatively rare in mainstream children’s products.

What Explains the Longevity of Pink and Blue?

While some challenge gendered colors, pink and blue persist as the norm over 100 years after first emerging as gender signifiers. Some factors that help explain their longevity:

  • Familiarity – They have become symbolic shorthand, allowing quick communication of gender.
  • Conformity – Many feel social pressure to conform to accepted gender norms.
  • Backlash – Attempts at gender neutrality have faced criticism and skepticism.
  • Marketing – Gendered products remain highly profitable across industries.

Given these entrenched factors, the gendered color scheme seems likely to remain prominent for the foreseeable future.

Conclusion

While babies were once dressed in neutral white, girl and boy infants today are color-coded in pink and blue from birth. This gender divide solidified in the mid-20th century through the efforts of marketers and gender conformity pressures. Pink and blue have now become indelibly linked with femininity and masculinity despite no inherent meaning in the colors themselves.

Critics view this as promoting harmful limitations and stereotypes. However, others argue the effects are minimal and that colorful gender expression can be fun and personally fulfilling. With deep generational and commercial roots, pink and blue are likely to retain their gendered symbolism for years to come, regardless of any social forces for change.