It’s so embarrassing when scientists use poorly-constructed studies to blithely reinforce societal stereotypes. Today, LPH at Second Innocence brings us the latest example.
A new study by scientists from Newcastle University gives substance to the old adage ‘Pink for a girl, blue for a boy’.
Evolution may have driven women’s preference for pink, according to the study published today.
‘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. Culture may exploit and compound this natural female preference’, says Professor Anya Hurlbert, Professor of Visual Neuroscience at Newcastle University.
The study, which is published in the latest issue of Current Biology, provides new scientific evidence in support of the long-held notion that men and women differ when it comes to their favourite colours.
‘Although we expected to find gender differences, we were surprised at how robust they were, given the simplicity of our test,’ says Professor Hurlbert.
LPH points out, this is really dumb for two glaring reasons. First, the pink=girl, blue=boy thing is a relatively new invention:
“…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 pertier for the girl.” [Ladies Home Journal, June, 1918]
Second, it’s just stupid to think you can take 171 brits who have been exposed to this stereotype their entire lives and expect a result to be reflective of some genetic effect. The explanations they come up with are cringe-worthy.
‘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. Culture may exploit and compound this natural female preference’, says Professor Anya Hurlbert, Professor of Visual Neuroscience at Newcastle University.
…
However, Professor Hurlbert says she could only speculate about the universal preference for blue: ‘Here again, I would favour evolutionary arguments. Going back to our ‘savannah’ days, we would have a natural preference for a clear blue sky, because it signalled good weather. Clear blue also signals a good water source’, she says.
LPH’s response is about right.
Oh, those savvy homo habilis home makers. You probably use those same red-finding skills in the supermarket today! Well, that settles it. We can, in fact, use preferences formed by a very small, very homogeneous group to explain our genetic gender differences and there will always be someone with the right letters behind their name who is willing to back up even the stupidest stereotype.
How does this kind of nonsense get published?