The evidence that pink was once a color associated with boys comes primarily from historical practices, particularly at Westminster School in Britain. However, the idea that pink was originally a “male” color and blue a “female” color is a misconception rooted in early 20th-century shifts and misinterpretations.
Historically, before the 20th century, there was no fixed concept linking specific colors to boys or girls. Babies and toddlers were generally dressed in white gowns regardless of sex. This uniformity reflected limited gender differentiation in infancy. Boys only began wearing garments styled for their gender near the age of breeching, usually adopting muted or darker tones but not distinct “boy colors.”
The late 19th century saw changing fashions influenced by cultural phenomena, like Frances Hodgson Burnett’s Little Lord Fauntleroy. This trend promoted elaborate attire for young boys, including velvet suits and lace collars. Such fashions, often deemed effeminate, triggered a movement toward clearer gender distinctions in children’s clothing. This era marked the beginning of associating certain colors with gender, though the standards were not yet firmly established.
The popular idea that pink was once firmly a “boys’ color” while blue was for girls largely arises from scattered 20th-century recommendations that sometimes reversed modern norms. These early sources offered contradictory suggestions, such as pink for boys and blue for girls or the reverse. Their recommendations reflected loose associations, often based on color qualities — lighter shades tended toward girls and darker toward boys — rather than any widely accepted rules.
Blue’s establishment as a boy’s color likely came down to practical and cultural factors. Blue dyes could produce stable darker hues, aligning with broader concepts of masculinity. Alternatively, the preference may have stemmed from chance and gained traction culturally rather than biologically or evolutionarily.
A clear, concrete example of pink being worn traditionally by boys exists at Westminster School in London. The school’s rowing team has worn pink uniforms since 1837. This tradition began after a notable rowing race against Eton College, where both teams arrived in blue but then switched to pink outfits, a color fashionable for men at the time.
The two crews competed for the right to keep the pink attire, with Westminster victorious. Since then, pink has remained a symbol of their boys’ rowing teams. This long-standing custom challenges the simplified narrative of gendered colors, illustrating that pink was an accepted and even prestigious color for males in some contexts.
The ongoing tradition at Westminster has intrigued and puzzled outsiders, especially in modern contexts where pink is more strongly coded as a feminine color. A 1998 article in the US-based Rowing News highlighted how British rowers prize pink gear, including the prestigious Leander Boat Club’s pink blades and accessories. In fact, American rowers adopted pink uniforms after seeing their British counterparts, emphasizing pink’s unique role in male sports attire.
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Pre-20th Century Infant Clothing | White gowns for all infants; minimal gender color differentiation |
| Influences in Late 1800s | Little Lord Fauntleroy inspired elaborate boys’ clothing, leading to gender differentiation |
| Early 1900s Color Suggestions | Inconsistent advice on using pink or blue for boys and girls; no firm gender code |
| Westminster School Tradition | Pink rowing uniforms since 1837 after race with Eton; a symbol of boys’ sports |
This historical perspective clarifies the myth about pink being definitively a “boy’s color” in the past. Instead, pink’s association with boys appears in particular regional and cultural scenarios but was not a general rule. The transition to widely accepted pink=female and blue=male is a 20th-century social development rather than a straightforward reversal of earlier standards.
Key takeaways:
- No fixed gender-color system existed before the 20th century; infants wore white gowns.
- Late 19th-century fashion pushed clearer gender distinctions, but color codes varied.
- Early 1900s sources gave conflicting suggestions about pink and blue, causing confusion.
- Westminster School’s pink rowing outfits from 1837 prove pink was used for boys in specific traditions.
- Today’s pink-for-girls and blue-for-boys convention grew culturally over time, not from a strict color switch.
Where’s the Evidence That Pink Was Once a Color for Boys?
Pink wasn’t always the “girly” color we think it is today. In fact, pink was once a popular color for boys in certain traditions and contexts. So, where’s the proof, and how did we get the story so hilariously wrong? Let’s dive into the fascinating history and bust some myths.
First off, the idea that pink was solely a boy’s color originally is a misconception. It’s a myth fuelled by misreadings and oversimplified pop culture versions of historical gender norms.
The Misconception Origin and Historical Context
The popular narrative often points to Jo Paoletti’s book Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America as evidence. But here’s the kicker: many sources either misinterpret or deliberately twist her research into a neat “color switch” story. The reality? There was no fixed concept of gendered colors until the early 20th century. Before that, colors weren’t assigned rigidly by gender. So, no “pink for boys” versus “blue for girls” set in stone.
Dress Codes for Infants and Toddlers Before Color Standards
Imagine a world where babies and toddlers all wore the same thing: white gowns. That was the norm up until the late 1800s. Both little boys and girls got decked out in white. Around the time boys reached “breeching age” — when they started wearing trousers — their gowns might shift to darker or more masculine styles, but still, they were gowns.
Here’s a quirky twist: in the 1880s and 1890s, thanks to the popularity of the novel Little Lord Fauntleroy, many mothers let their boys grow long hair in ringlets and dress them in plush velvet suits with lace collars. Sounds more like a Victorian rock band than boyish attire!
This extravagance sparked a backlash and led to growing interest in more distinctly gendered clothing. Magazines and catalogs moved from suggestions based on hair color or complexion to clear-cut gender-based advice. But still, no firm “pink for boys” or “blue for girls” rule.
The Origin of the “Color Switch” Myth
So where did this story about pink switching from boys to girls actually come from? Turns out, early 20th-century advice was chaotic — some sources suggested pink for boys and blue for girls. Others flipped it. There was no real consensus. You might say fashion advisors were just winging it!
Pink tends to be a lighter color, while blue was often made darker and seen as stronger—maybe that’s why blue ultimately “won” as the go-to boy color. Or perhaps it was just chance, not some deep evolutionary reason tied to female preference for blue. No psychologists arguing girls are naturally drawn to blue here!
Concrete Evidence: The Pink Rowing Tradition at Westminster School
If you want proof that pink was once acceptable—and even fashionable—for boys, you can’t get much better than the rowing teams at Westminster School in England.
Back in the spring of 1837, both Westminster and Eton College teams wore blue outfits. But in one memorable race, both crews showed up in pink. Why? Pink was a highly fashionable color for men at the time.
After the race, these two crews agreed the winner would get to wear pink permanently. Westminster triumphed, and since then, their boys’ rowing teams have rocked a flash of bright pink on their suits and oars. It’s a quirky tradition that endures today, despite raising some eyebrows and maybe a bit of teasing from other schools.
The interesting bit? This tradition extends beyond just Westminster. A 1998 Rowing News feature notes that pink is the most coveted color in British rowing. The prestigious Leander Boat Club sports pink blades, ties, socks, and even beanies. When the U.S. men’s quad wore bright pink unisuits thinking it’d be over-the-top, they found the Brits were already ahead of the curve, so they kept their pink kits packed and ready.
So, Should Pink Still Be a “Boy” Color?
Can we flip the script on pink? The Westminster rowing tradition cheekily reminds us that color—and its gender baggage—is mostly cultural baggage, not fact. Pink’s association with boys isn’t widespread historically but does have some quirky, concrete examples.
This means the idea that pink was “once a boy’s color” isn’t a simple flip of a switch but a reflection of evolving and often contradictory social norms. If anything, it shows how fluid and arbitrary color-gender rules really are.
Final Thoughts
- There was no strict pink-for-boys rule historically; early childhood clothing was mostly gender-neutral.
- Fashion fads, literature, and social trends influenced clothing styles much more than color ideology.
- Pink rowing outfits at Westminster provide a rare, solid example of pink as a male marker.
- The popular “color switch” myth is mostly a modern invention, a fun story rather than historical fact.
So next time someone says pink was strictly a boys’ color before switching, smile, and tell them—“Well, yes… but only if you were rowing at Westminster in the 1830s!”
Sources
- Samuel Orchart Beeton, The Boy’s Own Magazine (1863)
- John Dudley Carleton, Westminster School: A History (1965)
- Jack Carlson, Rowing Blazers (2014)
- Jo Paoletti, Pink and Blue: Telling the Boys from the Girls in America
