Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dewie | Hacker News Reader

It is interesting that some social conservatives (or maybe just non-liberals?) care about consciously enforcing gender roles through clothing. This would seem to imply that they are similar in their beliefs with feminists when it comes to the nature/nurture question: that gender is enforced through culture. But this is usually thought of as a very liberal idea (or whatever I should call it).

Pink as an effeminate color has always seemed kind of arbitrary to me. I just can't see how a color would have a specific gender.

View on HN

Where is data that link political persuasion and clothing preference? I see all kinds of people at Babies'R'Us making the same color choices.

I assumed that social conservatives would be more likely to have a strong opinion about how gender roles should be. But it was purely an assumption.

I think you're missing something. I don't see anyone enforcing anything. What if people like differentiation? Your comments imply that it's bad. I come from a family with adopted siblings. My siblings are very similar to their biological parents, who were unknown to them (and all of us) until they were 20+. Let me put it another way... They don't just share similar genes in their "appearance". From where I sit, nurture plays very little in shaping a person in a benevolent environment. I have decades of case study around me to support that view. I also believe that part of human socialization is about mimicry. Why do most people wear jeans? Why do we bother with pleasant looking hair-styles? Why don't men wear dresses? These don't define who I am, and I believe have little influence on the way I think (to the best of my knowledge). If girls want to wear pink, it's not a bad thing, nor should it be seen as so.

> I don't see anyone enforcing anything.

I was talking specifically about those who used clothing with that intent, not people who just go with what's fashionable and don't care much to or forth.

> What if people like differentiation?

I guess then that is what they like?

> Your comments imply that it's bad.

It does? I think enforcing gender roles is a generally a silly pursuit, since I believe more in nature than nurture (though as I've said it isn't always even the goal), and because I think that it can easily lead to a majority ("straight" gendered) suppressing a minority. When it comes to clothing, it's more of an interesting socio-historical thing to me, since I don't think it matters much one way or the other.

> I come from a family with adopted siblings. My siblings are very similar to their biological parents, who were unknown to them (and all of us) until they were 20+. Let me put it another way... They don't just share similar genes in their "appearance". From where I sit, nurture plays very little in shaping a person in a benevolent environment. I have decades of case study around me to support that view.

Ok. Hmm. Is this the part where I'm supposed to violently disagree with you?

> If girls want to wear pink, it's not a bad thing, nor should it be seen as so.

But I think that it's a bad thing? Ok.

Maybe pink occurs less in its most intense form, in my mind it's a 'pale' shade. It's presence in nature is also rarely attached to hard emotions (unlike red : blood, fire; black : rot, death, obscurity, etc etc) and reminds me of smooth skin, cat paws, flower petals. Things that are soft and smooth, which are qualities I attach naturally to girls.

Just my two subjective cents.

Sorry to be crude, but there is a very non-arbitrary reason for pink to be associated with females (and to a lesser extent, blue with males). In fact I always assumed this was indeed the cause for the association - I'm very surprised to learn it used to be reversed.

> Sorry to be crude, but there is a very non-arbitrary reason for pink to be associated with females (and to a lesser extent, blue with males).

You're excusing yourself for being crude? How is this crude?

> Sorry to be crude, but there is a very non-arbitrary reason for pink to be associated with females (and to a lesser extent, blue with males). In fact I always assumed this was indeed the cause for the association - I'm very surprised to learn it used to be reversed.

So what is the non-arbitrary reason? The one mentioned in the article?

> So what is the non-arbitrary reason? The one mentioned in the article?

You seem smart enough to have figured out the implication, but I believe s/he meant that the inner portion of the labia and opening to the vagina are pink; the word pink is also used as a slag term for the female genitalia.

Well in that case: the penis glans is pink.

Sure. I'm not endorsing the theory, merely stating it more directly (or so I think - I might be wrong).

You're not wrong, that's what I meant. Well, and that the tunica albuginea is bluish, I believe.

What passages from the text made you think she meant that?

This part:

> Sorry to be crude, but there is a very non-arbitrary reason for pink to be associated with females (and to a lesser extent, blue with males).

I thought the unstated crude, very non-arbitrary reason the grandparent poster aluded to was clear, but spelled out what I thought it to be in case I'm either wrong or someone didn't draw the inference.

My bad, I thought you were sourcing the article.

If a man's crude bits have gone blue then they should probably seek urgent medical attention.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com