A follow up to this post from around the same time last year.


The power of pink

The 'pinkification' of little girls – their clothes, their bedrooms, their toys – is a very recent phenomenon. So why did the launch this month of a campaign against the colour's dominance cause such uproar?

The campaign, PinkStinks, started out with the aim of offering girls positive alternative role models, says Emma, "women who do amazing things. Scientists and sportswomen and musicians and businesswomen and activists." Trying to reverse the seemingly unstoppable tide of pink was simply another way, they felt, of challenging what they saw as rampant and unacceptable gender stereotyping, from earliest childhood.

The imposition of color preferences seems to be arbitary, but it's the feminist deconstructionism that is the real danger to children. Children may choose a certain color because of certain associations; they may also reject it because it is known to be the preferred by members of the other sex. One does not have to be a cultural Marxist to acknowledge this. However, just as physical differences provide the matter for deeper differences between the sexes, so awareness of physical difference is the foundation of identity-formation; learning the virtues proper to one's sex is grounded upon this awareness of what one is. Those boys and girls who are outliers should undoubtedly be given careful attention so that they do not reject their sexual identity completely.

Only dualists and gnostics believe that the soul (or mind) can be completely severed from the body. The spiritual nature of the soul leads many to believe that its flexibility, potentiality, and universality can be extended to the body as well, when plainly this is not the case.

Feminists are definitely committed to their cause, seeking to extend their worldview where possible. Meanwhile they are miserable living in conformity with their beliefs, or find happiness by being hypocrites.

The website PinkStinks.