Color by… Gender?

By Tristan Bridges and Peter Rydzewski*

Colors are one way that the gender of different spaces can be communicated.  Pink and blue are the most identifiable, and recent research shows that men do seem to prefer blue (though, so do women).  Men’s aversion from pink, however, is stronger than women’s (though it’s also true that pink can be framed as masculine for select groups of men).  While this can feel timeless, like most aspects of gender, it hasn’t always been around.  And even when we began assigning gender to colors, pink was not always associated with girls.

Jo B. Paoletti’s incredible history of children’s fashion in America—Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America—is a beautifully written and carefully researched examination this strange issue.  Prior to the 1900s, children in America were dressed in ways that illustrated their age rather than gender (and both little boys and girls wore white dresses and had long hair).  But, right around the turn of the 20^th century, we started to see children being dressed in more colors and certain colors coming to be associated with either girls or boys—but not both.  Paoletti  starts a chapter with an excellent quote from a department store publication in 1918 explaining children’s clothes to parents in the responding to readers section.  It reads:

Pink or Blue?  Which is intended for boys and which for girls?… There have been a great diversity of opinion on this subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for a boy and blue for a girl.  The reason is that pink, being a decidedly stronger color, is more suitable for a boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for a girl. (here: 85)

Today, we think of pink as a “girl color,” and few of us would struggle if asked whether it was for girls or boys.  But, the parents addressed in this publication were less sure.  Apparently, these parents didn’t know what we know and, by contemporary standards, the author seems to have the colors mixed up.  So, colors are capable of acquiring a gender, and when they do, framing is clearly key.

This issue is dramatically highlighted in a recent advertising campaign by CIL paints.  The campaign is entitled “Paint Chip Names for Men” and it was accompanied by a pamphlet—CIL Ultimate Man Caves—that listed the actual names of CIL paint colors along with a “manly name” (like switching a dark tan from “Monterey Cliffs” to “Wolfden”) along with a series of images of different kinds of man caves.

Bro-Porn: Heterosexualizing Straight Men’s Anti-Homophobia

by Tristan Bridges and C.J. Pascoe

Originally posted at Girl W/ Pen

Every year, since 2009, the men of England’s Warwick University’s Rowing Team pose nude together in a series of photos that can be purchased individually or collectively as a calendar. The sales from this calendar go toward supporting their team and to raise awareness about bullying and homophobia among youth. This year, however, the team received international attention (prompting the development of a twitter account, a website, and a store to sell the photos and other team paraphernalia—like their 2013 film, “Brokeback Boathouse”). At first glance it may seem surprising that (presumably) straight men would pose naked with one another to raise money. But, when looking at other straight, young, white men’s stances on homophobia it becomes clear that, ironically, part of what is happening here is a shoring up of a particular form of heterosexual masculinity. Indeed the Warwick Women’s Rowing Team produced a similar calendar without the same amount of media attention (significantly, however, the attention they did receive was more often condemnatory).

The attention the Warwick boys received echoes that directed at Seattle-based hip-hop artist Ben Haggerty (Macklemore) upon the release of his hit song “Same Love” in 2012.  The song, a ballad of support for gay and lesbian rights, was recorded during the 2012 campaign in Washington state to legalize same-sex marriage. It reached 11 on Billboard’s “Hot 100” list in the U.S., and hit number 1 in both New Zealand and Australia.  The single cover art features an image of Ben’s uncle and his partner, Sean. Macklemore, who “outs” himself as straight in the song’s opening, claims that the song grew out of his frustration with hip-hop’s endemic homophobia.*

What do the Warwick University men’s rowing team and Macklemore have in common?  They are all young, straight, attractive, white men taking a public stance against homophobia and receiving a lot of credit for it. This development seems to contradict a great deal of theory and research on masculinity (as well as conventional wisdom) which has consistently shown homophobia to be an important way in which young men prove to themselves and others that they are truly masculine (see here, here and here for instance). Upon first glance it seems that Macklemore and the Warwick University Rowers are harbingers of change – young, straight, white men for whom homophobia is unimportant and undesirable. That is, homophobia is no longer a building block of contemporary forms of masculinity.  Indeed, such a reading may be part of the story.