Oddly, The Lego Movie features ramshackle designs intended to invoke the free spirit of individual play and imagination. [...] But the bulk of the tie-in sets feature these supposedly spontaneous and unplanned designs. What was shown as individual and unique is now mass produced for your consumption.
My only problem with the Friends line is that the figures aren't the same size as the minfigs. I get the reasons for that, of course, but I do think it separates it out from the rest of the Lego line.
In the 1800s most infants were dressed in white, and gender differences weren't highlighted until well after the kids were able to walk. . . . By mid [19th] century baby clothing in colors other than white had begun to appear . . . gender-based distinctions were slow to emerge . . . But from the 1890s onward, boys' and girls' clothing styles started to diverge . . . for reasons that remain obscure.
A 1905 Times article said [pink for boys, blue for girls], and Parents magazine was still saying it as late as 1939. Some argued that pink was a close relative of red, which was seen as a fiery, manly color. Others traced the association of blue with girls to the frequent depiction of the Virgin Mary in blue.
After [WWII] the tide shifted permanently in favor of blue as a boy's color.
"And you found that he was an Oxford man."
“An Oxford man!” He was incredulous. “Like hell he is! He wears a pink suit.”
“Nevertheless he’s an Oxford man.”
I hadn’t gone twenty yards when I heard my name and Gatsby stepped from between two bushes into the path. I must have felt pretty weird by that time, because I could think of nothing except the luminosity of his pink suit under the moon. . . .
His gorgeous pink rag of a suit made a bright spot of color against the white steps, and I thought of the night when I first came to his ancestral home, three months before.
It's really a story of what happened to neutral clothing.' . . . While pink and blue and other pastel colors were introduced as colors for babies in the mid-19th century, it wasn't until just before World War I that they had any gender specificity. And not until much later that they were set in stone like today.
[I]t easily could have gone the other way - with pink being for boys, and blue for girls. According to a June 1918 article in Earnshaw's Infants' Department, a trade publication: 'The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.'
Pink and blue became the gender norms in [the 1940s] with the rise of manufacturers and retailers. Baby boomers girls wore pink, and boys wore blue. But then following generations rebelled against that definition.
Consumerism was a large driver in solidifying the gendered colors. Retailers found that the more they honed in on the gender, the more they sold. . . . 'All of a sudden it wasn't just a blue overall; it was a blue overall with a teddy bear holding a football.'
« Older A Camera falls out of a plane. It records the jou... | "Life-long Kazakhstan Presiden... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt