Lindsay Patterson

You know how you always suspected that the female craziness for pink was a matter of gender marketing, or at least personal choice?

Turns out your suspicions were wrong. According to a new study, women really do prefer pink and men prefer blue, and it’s a deep-seated evolutionary trait that harks back to ye olde hunter-gatherer days. While the men were out tracking down protein with primitive spears, members of the fairer sex were responsible for plucking ripe, red fruits (at times under duress from snakes). After years of tediously peering through leafy bushes and trees, their eyes developed an uncanny ability to notice reddish tones. Meanwhile, men found it useful to note that blue means clear skies and water.

Such conclusions were drawn by British researchers flashing color cards in front of test subjects and marking their results down on a chart. And thus, by painting your new baby’s room light blue or light pink, you have fulfilled your evolutionary destiny.

It’s a little more than convenient that the red berry/blue water theory justifies today’s cultural preferences. In our enlightened 21st century perspective, it may seem obvious that pink is the most frilly and feminine color imaginable. But as Ben Goldacre, of the Guardian’s Bad Science column, points out, only a century ago, it was exactly the opposite:

Back in the days when ladies had a home journal (in 1918) the Ladies Home Journal wrote: “There has been a great diversity of opinion on the subject, but the generally accepted rule is pink for the boy and blue for the girl. 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.”

I suppose this evidence means that during the early twentieth century, there was some switch in our evolutionary knowledge, analogous to the reversal of the magnetic poles.

In the same vein of cultural generalizations, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published a study proving that sexual orientation is revealed by body type and motion. Which means that most people can accurately stereotype a stranger’s sexual preference just by watching them walk down the street. What the researchers did was show test subjects the backsides of people walking on a treadmill, and ask them to draw conclusions as to whether they were gay or straight.PhysOrg reports:

The findings also are part of mounting evidence suggesting that sexual orientation may actually be what social scientists call a “master status category,” or a defining characteristic that observers cannot help but notice and which has been scientifically shown to color all subsequent social dealings with others.

To me, this sounds suspiciously like eugenics. But that’s just my interpretation. What do you think of the science behind these studies?