Post: #1

In 19th century England, pink ribbons or decorations were often worn by young boys; boys were simply considered small men, and while men in England wore red uniforms, boys wore pink. In fact the clothing for children in the 19th century was almost always white, since, before the invention of chemical dyes, clothing of any color would quickly fade when washed in boiling water. Queen Victoria was painted in 1850 with her seventh child and third son, Prince Arthur, who wore white and pink.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink#The_19th_century


An article in the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department in June 1918 said: 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.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink#Gender


According to public opinion surveys in Europe and the United States, pink is the color most associated with charm, politeness, sensitivity, tenderness, sweetness, softness, childhood, the feminine, and the romantic. Although it did not have any strong negative associations in these surveys, few respondents chose pink as their favorite color. Pink was the favorite color of only two-percent of respondents, compared with forty-five-percent who chose blue. Pink was the least-favorite color of seventeen percent of respondents; the only color more disliked was brown, with twenty percent. There was a notable difference between men and women; three percent of women chose pink as their favorite color, compared with less than one percent of men. Many of the men surveyed were unable to even identify pink correctly, confusing it with mauve. Pink was also more popular with older people than younger; twenty-five percent of women under twenty-five called pink their least favorite color, compared with only eight percent of women over fifty. Twenty-nine percent of men under the age of twenty-five said pink was their least favorite color, compared with eight percent of men over fifty.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink#Common...popularity



Since joining this forum and taking the red pill I am now seeing everywhere examples of how culture hates me because I am a white heterosexual male and wants everyone else to hate me too. Everyone agreed that pink was masculine and made men look good and then suddenly culture warps the public opinion to such an extent that the vast majority of men won't even admit anonymously to liking the color. I guess that makes me the 1% because I will freely admit that pink is my favorite color. I look great in it, especially when I'm wearing black, and women go crazy over a dash of pink in an outfit. It sure doesn't feel like a gay or feminine color when I'm fucking a girl in her pink because she liked my tie and the confidence needed to wear it in modern culture.

On the subject of modern culture I think the best example I can produce of an outlier in the feminazi media is Kanye Omari West. He's publicly practiced inner game his entire career and (after a long string of fucking models and actresses) has married and baby-momma'd one of, if not the most, desired sex symbol in the world. I bring him up because he's my role model and he actually spoke directly on the subject of this topic:

“Society has put up so many boundaries, so many limitations on what’s right and wrong that it’s almost impossible to get a pure thought out. It’s like a little kid, a little boy, looking at colors, and no one told him what colors are good, before somebody tells you you shouldn’t like pink because that’s for girls, or you’d instantly become a gay two-year-old. Why would anyone pick blue over pink? Pink is obviously a better color. Everyone’s born confident, and everything’s taken away from you”

Does the first sentence not remind you of the fascist nature of the social justice warriors? Am I the only person who gets chills at the last sentence? Culture actively hates you and will do whatever it takes to have you destroyed. The fact that you're here proves it. Sadly I think things will only get worse.


What are your thoughts? Am I seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one?

Post: #2

I'm not quite sure what the point of this post is.

The assertion that our -- I assume you mean American -- culture hates white, heterosexual men is a great simplification of what exactly is going on in society. American society is best summarized as the "war of all against all." A person doesn't do themselves any favors if they internalize that society hates them for their immutable qualities -- even if that is true.

Further, this isn't a white nationalist nor an MRA forum. I would say this forum is about improvement of the mind, body and soul to the best of your abilities.

As far as your commentary on sex-based preferences for colors is concerned, it is confusing. If blue is considered masculine now, and pink feminine - while the reverse was true over a century ago, it doesn't mean that pink is historically masculine, but that certain colors suggest masculine values (strength, stoicism, etc.) and certain colors denote feminine values (sensitivity, empathy, etc.). If this is purely a function of social conditioning -- which is entirely possible considering the nature of access to dyes and the like -- then pink isn't historically masculine, just that certain colors will be deemed masculine and others feminine.

You claim to not be bothered by society not admitting pink is a masculine color, but then what spurred this post? This isn't a personal criticism, but a wonder over motivation. It sounds like you feel embarrassed that you like wearing pink and wish that you would be seen as masculine for wearing it. I would venture to guess that you like to transgress social norms for men, at least when it comes to the hue of the clothing you want to wear.

As far as your commentary on Kanye, he is dead wrong on children being born naturally confident. Kanye is a clinical narcissist, of course he believes he was born perfect. Children are born with extreme amounts of anxiety and no personal identity.

However...

Quote:The fact that you're here proves it.

Neither member of the moderation team here is white. I would guess most of the forum isn't white.

Quote:Am I seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one?

A conspiracy against white, heterosexual males who want to wear pink clothing and be seen as masculine because society hates us and wants to destroy us?

Post: #3

The 'grey blazer pink shirt' look is still used, and associated with high class.

Post: #4

Interesting aside: the colour pink does not actually exist in the spectrum. What you are looking at is the brain's interpretation of what's there.

Post: #5

Outside the US men regularly wear pink shirts as they would any other color. Even in the US, I don't think it is considered strange to wear a pink shirt with a suit.

Post: #6

(10-31-2014 12:36 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  I'm not quite sure what the point of this post is.

The assertion that our -- I assume you mean American -- culture hates white, heterosexual men is a great simplification of what exactly is going on in society. American society is best summarized as the "war of all against all." A person doesn't do themselves any favors if they internalize that society hates them for their immutable qualities -- even if that is true.

Further, this isn't a white nationalist nor an MRA forum. I would say this forum is about improvement of the mind, body and soul to the best of your abilities.

As far as your commentary on sex-based preferences for colors is concerned, it is confusing. If blue is considered masculine now, and pink feminine - while the reverse was true over a century ago, it doesn't mean that pink is historically masculine, but that certain colors suggest masculine values (strength, stoicism, etc.) and certain colors denote feminine values (sensitivity, empathy, etc.). If this is purely a function of social conditioning -- which is entirely possible considering the nature of access to dyes and the like -- then pink isn't historically masculine, just that certain colors will be deemed masculine and others feminine.

You claim to not be bothered by society not admitting pink is a masculine color, but then what spurred this post? This isn't a personal criticism, but a wonder over motivation. It sounds like you feel embarrassed that you like wearing pink and wish that you would be seen as masculine for wearing it. I would venture to guess that you like to transgress social norms for men, at least when it comes to the hue of the clothing you want to wear.

As far as your commentary on Kanye, he is dead wrong on children being born naturally confident. Kanye is a clinical narcissist, of course he believes he was born perfect. Children are born with extreme amounts of anxiety and no personal identity.

However...

Quote:The fact that you're here proves it.

Neither member of the moderation team here is white. I would guess most of the forum isn't white.

Quote:Am I seeing a conspiracy where there isn't one?

A conspiracy against white, heterosexual males who want to wear pink clothing and be seen as masculine because society hates us and wants to destroy us?

This was my first attempt at addressing the forum after lurking for a while. I guess I was targeting a minority of the userbase with it. I'm not a racist or a misogynist, but I do think american culture hates white heterosexual men in some niche areas of the left. Ultimately my motivation was simply to articulate some ideas that have been running in my head and see if they carried any weight. Your post has made things less confusing but I am also leaning less in the direction I was while writing this post.

Post: #7

To me, the issue of pink as historically masculine means more a sign of cultural relativity than discrimination or conspiracy. I don't personally miss pink color or feel discriminated for not being able to wear it without looking gay, but it's always valuable to stop and remind ourselves that what has one meaning today might have a different meaning in the future.

That said, it is also important to differentiate between truly relative meanings (such as pink being masculine or not) and ingrained, biological and extremely fixed meanings (such as men preferring women with BMI 20.5 and waist to hip ratio of 0.7) that can only be temporarily changed under extreme conditions.

Post: #8

Yeah I have pink shirts.

Pink and red trousers have been a recent fashion among guys, starting with upper-class Brits years ago.

Post: #9

So this is why I see so many young guys wearing pink shirts. So they don't see it as a very fetching colour, but masculine...

Post: #10

Pussies are often very pink. I associate pink with female.

Post: #11

(10-31-2014 01:00 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  Outside the US men regularly wear pink shirts as they would any other color. Even in the US, I don't think it is considered strange to wear a pink shirt with a suit.

I remember when I was in college in the early 2000s men wearing pink was a fad. Pink polos with popped collars was the thing, and you can still see it today in prepster circles.

Post: #12

(10-31-2014 01:00 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  Outside the US men regularly wear pink shirts as they would any other color. Even in the US, I don't think it is considered strange to wear a pink shirt with a suit.

I rock pink all the time. I've gotten many more looks from wearing that in combination with nice shoes than any other colors.

Post: #13

Post: #14

I call bullshit. If I'm not mistaken this "pink used to be a masculine color" argument is a recent invention by a couple of feminist "scholars" who are just trying to muddy up the gender waters. The goal, of course, is to make it seem that all indicators of gender and sexuality are simply "social constructions." There are a lot of books about how guys used to take it in the ass and then consider themselves straight. That's just more of the same.

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, friend. Gender weirdos are constantly editing articles there to inject their bizarre, mentally ill world views into the public psyche.

Post: #15

(10-31-2014 11:58 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  I call bullshit. If I'm not mistaken this "pink used to be a masculine color" argument is a recent invention by a couple of feminist "scholars" who are just trying to muddy up the gender waters. The goal, of course, is to make it seem that all indicators of gender and sexuality are simply "social constructions." There a lot of books about how guys used to take it in the ass and then consider themselves straight. That's just more of the same.

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, friend. Gender weirdos are constantly editing articles there to inject their bizarre, mentally ill world views into the public psyche.

Exactly. It's feminists doing what they always do, presenting feels as fact, and anything gender-related on Wikipedia is a waste of time due to their deliberate organised targeting to conform to their feminist dogma.

This article is interesting.

Pink Blue Reversal: A Scientific Urban Legend?

Some highlights:

Quote:The reader may be surprised to learn that Paoletti herself never endorsed the PBR in her own articles and books. Rather, she made the weaker claim that the gender coding of pink and blue was inconsistent — not reversed — at the beginning of the twentieth century and that the current pink-blue convention only became dominant in the 1950s (Paoletti, 1987, 1997, 2012).

Quote:While these excerpts seem consistent with the PBR (and/or Paoletti’s weaker claims), there is no way to tell how representative they are of the broader cultural norms of their time. For example, gender color-coding was explicitly targeted by early twentieth century feminist writers (see Paoletti, 1987); some of these excerpts may reflect deliberate attempts to weaken or subvert existing conventions, rather than the existence of alternative conventions.

The whole thing is worth a read.

Post: #16

Damn. Im even more confused now.

Post: #17

Fuck the history wearing pink is cool.

If you know anything about the rapper Lil B, then you would understand why Pink is probably the best color to have.

Now I must take this pink cowboy hat and be on my way.

Post: #18

Pink is an awesome color if you can pull it off. I've got a shortsleeved pink seersucker buttonup and I get great attention in it.





The rest of your outfit should complement it more or less perfectly. You don't want to be fucking with pink unless you know what you're doing.

Edit: Holy Lime green...I didn't see the bottom part of that pic when I posted it. That is not a good example of how to wear pink.

Post: #19

Why wear pink when you can wear a dominant masculine colour?

TEAM NO PINK.

Post: #20

Uh oh...another "Appetizer" debate.

What it really comes down to isn't particular colors, but of peacocking. To say "TEAM NO PINK" is to basically say "TEAM NO PEACOCKING".

Which is fine, to each their own. Not everyone can get away with peacocking (I hardly, if ever, do)

However, I will say this: Some of the hottest girls I've ever seen were with hardcore peacocking dudes.

Post: #21

^ I was joking, mate.

That being said, if I'm seriously-considering the issue, there's three things that give me pause:

- I lived through the soft pastel nightmare of the mid-1980's. Never again.

- Feminists want men to wear pink to fuck with gender norms, so, no.

- The gay guys I used to work with loved wearing it.

There is nothing remotely-feminine in my wardrobe. Dark colours. If I want to peacock, I roll up my sleeves.

TEAM NO PINK, (Seriously, this time).

Post: #22

Works wonders at Happy Hour and mixers.

WIA

Post: #23

(10-31-2014 01:23 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(10-31-2014 11:58 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  I call bullshit. If I'm not mistaken this "pink used to be a masculine color" argument is a recent invention by a couple of feminist "scholars" who are just trying to muddy up the gender waters. The goal, of course, is to make it seem that all indicators of gender and sexuality are simply "social constructions." There a lot of books about how guys used to take it in the ass and then consider themselves straight. That's just more of the same.

Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, friend. Gender weirdos are constantly editing articles there to inject their bizarre, mentally ill world views into the public psyche.

Exactly. It's feminists doing what they always do, presenting feels as fact, and anything gender-related on Wikipedia is a waste of time due to their deliberate organised targeting to conform to their feminist dogma.

This article is interesting.

Pink Blue Reversal: A Scientific Urban Legend?

Some highlights:

Quote:The reader may be surprised to learn that Paoletti herself never endorsed the PBR in her own articles and books. Rather, she made the weaker claim that the gender coding of pink and blue was inconsistent — not reversed — at the beginning of the twentieth century and that the current pink-blue convention only became dominant in the 1950s (Paoletti, 1987, 1997, 2012).

Quote:While these excerpts seem consistent with the PBR (and/or Paoletti’s weaker claims), there is no way to tell how representative they are of the broader cultural norms of their time. For example, gender color-coding was explicitly targeted by early twentieth century feminist writers (see Paoletti, 1987); some of these excerpts may reflect deliberate attempts to weaken or subvert existing conventions, rather than the existence of alternative conventions.

The whole thing is worth a read.

I have to agree. Feminists like to take the smallest grain of truth and warp it to their ideological goals. It is actually pretty amazing at the amount of bullshit they can create and spread with just a few Academics. As I have said for some time, feminists and their bullshit lies and half-truths are a priori evidence that women shouldn't be allowed in academia or any place where they can influence much of anything (yeah, yeah, NAWALT or whatever).


Historically, dyes were difficult to come by and it was even harder to find plants to make good dyes that would give deep and rich colors that would last and not fade.

Then a number of plants, from what I remember of my art classes, were found to make dyes and paints that had deep and rich colors. This was mainly blues and some purples and dark reds/maroons.

These became the colors associated with royalty due to their expense and rarity. Also, it wasn't usually the queens that wore a lot of heavy blue and purple but the Kings. So, yeah...bullshit.

As far as the half-truth goes. Go and look at some paintings of men's dress during Victorian ages. It was very feminine with stockings and platforms and laces and what not. I have a few theories on it but I honestly do not know enough about that time period to say anything with certainty. My guess though, is that, revolves around men, or a large segment of men, becoming more feminine during those periods. Or maybe it was seen as somewhat masculine.

Hell, maybe back then it was a darker red that faded to pink over the centuries giving us a skewed perspective on it??? Who knows.

Also, another half-truth feminists have been parroting the last few years goes something like this: "before the 19th and 20th century boys and girls both wore dress as children and it wasn't until a boy became a man that he wore patriarchal pants to denote his oppressive and privileged status...blah blah blah."

There is actually some truth to this. If you were to go back in time 150 years and look at my poor ancestors, or even the middle class ones, living in the south and Appalachia areas you would probably see that the boys and girls both wore skirts/dresses of sorts until about the age of 8-12.

The reason for this is due to the fact that it was extremely expensive to buy pants. Most men would only have a few pairs of pants and they would have their women, or sometimes do it themselves...there is a reason why the army taught you how to hem and sow, repair the pants on a regular basis.

It simply wasn't economical, unless you were extremely wealthy, to buy a new pair of pants every few months so that your "little patriarch" could walk around in mud or shit in his oppressive clothing.

So, for most families they would buy their sons their first pair of pants when the boys growth started to slow down. Buy it a few sizes larger, or actually I think they sold what you might call starter pants that could be let out and let down a few times a year, and just keep them hemmed. Around this time the girls would get their first couple of dresses for family gatherings and church and so on.



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co...et_004.jpg

Post: #24

Team Sometimes Pink.

Post: #25

(11-02-2014 08:16 PM)Troll King Wrote:  As far as the half-truth goes. Go and look at some paintings of men's dress during Victorian ages. It was very feminine with stockings and platforms and laces and what not. I have a few theories on it but I honestly do not know enough about that time period to say anything with certainty. My guess though, is that, revolves around men, or a large segment of men, becoming more feminine during those periods. Or maybe it was seen as somewhat masculine.

I believe you're thinking of the Elizabethan era, but it brings up and interesting point.

If you go back just a few decades before the reign of Elizabeth I to the Tudor period, the fashion amongst nobility was definitely not feminine. Extravagant perhaps, but not feminine, as seen in these pictures of Henry VIII (notice the impressive codpiece) and one of his courtiers. Both give the appearance of self-assured masculine confidence. (Of course Henry was the guy in the habit of having his wives beheaded when they didn't behave ).




It was when Elizabeth came to the throne around 1560 that male fashion for courtiers became much more feminine, where the image of grace was emphasised over strength. This is where we start seeing lace ruffles, a more feminine waist line and so on, like this guy, Robert Dudley, widely believed to be the guy who was banging the "virgin queen." (It's also interesting that the artist appears to depict him in a feminine manner. Notice his slender fingers compared to the fingers of the men above, and the gracefulness of his facial lines. Is this an Elizabethan white knight?)



Of course it's no coincidence that this occurred during the reign of a highly successful and respected female monarch. The queen enjoyed almost absolute authority, and it's understandable that male fashion may have mimicked the queen's in a time when success in the court (or banging the queen) depended on gaining her favour and trust.

However, note that this was only the norm for the noble classes. Even Shakespeare didn't dress like this (even though there are some portraits of him wearing clothes of nobility). The average peasant man wore much more practical and masculine clothing like these guys.



It just wouldn't have been practical for most to wear anything resembling the fashion of the nancy boys in the palace.

Only about 50 years after Elizabeth's death, there is once again a man on the throne, and noblemen once again dress as men.



Again, extravagant, but not at all feminine. (The high heels incidentally were a male fashion that originated in Persia. Horsemen in the military wore heels so they could more easily stand in the strirrups while firing arrows. It was adopted by horsemen in Europe, and soon became fashionable amongst European nobility. I will concede that Charles I in the above picture does look a little bit gay in his heels by our standards, but they would have been considered manly in his day. Perhaps this is proof that while ideas about the appearance of masculinity may vary slightly from generation to generation, the discrepancy isn't so great that we can conclude that gender is merely a social construction. Anybody from any generation would look that that picture and conclude that that's the appearance of a manly man getting manly shit done).

Of course, during the reign of the next female monarch, Victoria, male fashion didn't mimic that of the queen. By the Victorian era, the monarchy had become largely symbolic, and men no longer needed to rely on the queen's favour in order to become successful. They could dress as they pleased, not surprisingly in a manner we could universally agree is masculine.



Or maybe it's because nobody wanted to bang the queen.



Incidentally, I could find no pictures of men wearing pink before the 20th century. The closest I could find was crimson, which is not even close to the shade of pink that girls choose to wear.