You Call This Research?

Everybody, and I mean literally everybody has been making a fuss over the study that supposedly discovered the evolutionary reason behind men liking blue and women having a pink fetish. I declined making comments on this believing that discussing anything as silly as that would be giving it undeserved mindspace. But when every newspaper is running that load of bullshit, you just have to bring your pooper scooper out.

The first question that we have to address is: Does any such gender specific preference exist? From what i have observed the answer is a no. When pink shirts became a new fashion statement, the men who adopted them were variously branded as metrosexual or gay in the west. But when that happened in India, the media - except for some parts of the English media - was largely silent. The men took to it like people take to any new trend; some liked it some didn't. My point is that if at all there is a bias, then its largely a result of social conditioning. People tell you that guys are not supposed to like pink, the media tells you that pink is girly. Who wants to stand out? Everybody would rather blend in.

Also note this quote from the study:

The Chinese students showed a marked preference for red. As red symbolises luck and happiness in China, this indicates that cultural norms are also involved.

See? It is culture that is playing the major role here. Not genes.

Now for the rest of the claims that the story makes:

“The explanation might date back to humans’ hunter-gatherer days, when women were the primary gatherers and would have benefited from an ability to home in on ripe, red fruits.”

Flawed. The study just proves that women like pink. It says nothing about their ability to detect pink. By the very same logic why do men prefer blue? Were they delegated the task of looking for blueberries?

The second supposed 'reason':

Pinks are also involved in showing changes in emotional states, and might be picked up preferentially by women. “Again, females may have honed these adaptations for their roles as care-givers and ‘empathisers’,” the researchers said.

Blushing and other instances of the skin getting a shade of pink are evident only among people with pale skin. In a person with a darker skin tone such effects won't be visible. This supposed explanation thus conveniently ignores huge parts of humanity.

Its amazing that studies such as these receive funding. Mind boggling actually.

Update: Bad Science has a post on the same topic. Here is a quote from their article:

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.”

The Sunday Sentinel in 1914 told American mothers: “If you like the color note on the little one’s garments, use pink for the boy and blue for the girl, if you are a follower of convention.” Some sources suggest it wasn’t until the 1940s that the modern gender associations of girly pink became universally accepted.

Heh.

Disclaimer: This critique is based totally on the Times Online version of the study. You have to pay up if you want the original research paper. Even if i had the money, it would go to a hosting plan for my blog and a box of ferrero rochers for me. No supporting researchers who waste money on stuff like that.

More: Joe Paoletti on Dressing For The Sexes.

Patience

Indiaholic will be going through a few design changes. Posting will be on a hold for a while.

Quote Of The Day

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.

-Tommy Smothers

Check Your Facts

Sonia Gandhi has been ranked 6th in the Forbes list of the most powerful women in the world. While she certainly deserves her place there, the reasons that Forbes gives for her selection are amusing:

Lawmakers recently elected Gandhi's choice for president, Pratibha Patil, in a historic vote seen as a step forward for India's women and girls who endure daily discrimination.

Do your research people. Pratibha was not even considered when negotiations between the Left and the Congress began. But when the Left rejected every single candidate proposed by the Congress, Ms Patil was brought in. Why? Because the Left wouldn't dare oppose her candidature: Anybody anti Patil can very easily be branded as anti women.

She was not Sonia's choice for the post of the President, she was Sonia's way to avoid a confrontation with the left. The claim that all of this has anything to do with women's empowerment is of course a load of monkey poop.

Sonia is the among the most powerful women in the world because she runs the government of the world's biggest democracy. Thats it. Nothing more, nothing less.

R.I.P Peeping Tom

All those little kids in N.Y who are looking forward to one more year of dropped erasers, and the accidental views of panties as you bent down to pick them up are in for a rude surprise: Peeping into women's clothing may soon be banned.