ABSTRACT
M a n y readers o f the New York Times were startled recently to learn that one o f the ir
most cherished assumptions about c lothing and gender was, apparently, w i t h o u t g r o u n d .
Baby clothes, w h i c h since at least the 1940's have been rout inely d i v i d e d along gender
and co lor lines, p i n k for gir ls , blue for boys, were , said the Times, once just the other way
about. In the early years o f the twent ie th century, before W o r l d W a r I, boys w o r e p i n k
("a stronger, m o r e dec ided c o l o r , " according to the p r o m o t i o n a l l i terature o f the t ime)
w h i l e girls w o r e blue (understood to be "de l ica te" and " d a i n t y " ) . O n l y after W o r l d W a r
II, the Times reported, d i d the present al ignment o f the t w o genders w i t h p i n k and blue
come into being.
