<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sociology &#8211; Classic Lines Design</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.classiclinesdesign.com/tag/sociology/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.classiclinesdesign.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2016 09:33:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-GB</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	

 
	<item>
		<title>So is blue for boys, and pink for girls?</title>
		<link>https://www.classiclinesdesign.com/blue-boys-pink-girls/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[arran]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Aug 2016 14:04:48 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Colour theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Graphic Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gender roles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sociology]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.classiclinesdesign.com/?p=3866</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>This may be generally true today, but these gender-specific colours are a modern, social construct. It seems like this happened some time around the 1940s. It is no coincidence that this binary transformation coincided with the so-called &#8216;golden age of advertising.&#8216; If you get the chance to browse a catalogue from the 1970s, you&#8217;ll struggle [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.classiclinesdesign.com/blue-boys-pink-girls/">So is blue for boys, and pink for girls?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.classiclinesdesign.com">Classic Lines Design</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This may be generally true today, but these gender-specific colours are a modern, social construct.</p>
<p>It seems like this happened some time around the 1940s. It is no coincidence that this binary transformation coincided with the so-called &#8216;<strong><em>golden age of advertising.</em></strong>&#8216;</p>
<p>If you get the chance to browse a catalogue from the 1970s, you&#8217;ll struggle to find a big difference between the colours of boys&#8217; and girls&#8217; clothing and toys. What&#8217;s even more surprising is that for a long time before this, people associated blue with females and pink with males.</p>
<h3>Before this 20th Century shift:</h3>
<ul>
<li><span style="color: #cc2457;">Pink was always seen as representing:</span> Blood, aggression and the Sacred Heart…</li>
<li><span style="color: #5ea6da;">Whilst blue represented:</span> Serenity, Calm skies / lakes and the Virgin Mary.</li>
</ul>
<p>The post <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.classiclinesdesign.com/blue-boys-pink-girls/">So is blue for boys, and pink for girls?</a> appeared first on <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.classiclinesdesign.com">Classic Lines Design</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
