Pink vs. Blue

I'm taking a Gender Communication course, and yesterday my professor was discussing society's perceptions of genders and the associations we've been conditioned to make about them. One of the most basic associations: Blue is for boys and pink is for girls. Most of us could recognize that association pretty easily. It's more than likely that we all could have made that connection before we even knew how to spell our names. However, my professor was explaining to us that years ago, probably before most of us bloggers existed, these colors were actually often... reversed!

I decided to do a quick little search, and while they're not very scholarly sources, I did find some things that would support this theory!

"that using color for baby gender identification is (perhaps) a pretty recent development. Earlier in the twentieth century, color identification was used but it was reversed. That is, pink was used for boys and blue for girls. This was noted in several newspaper articles (1914, 1918) advising that since pink was the stronger color and better for boys whereas blue is more delicate and therefore more suitable for girls."
via Askville

"The truth is, pink is for boys and blue for girls. Why I do not know. But the origins can be traced to the Middle East, where, due to high infant mortality, baby boys were dressed as girls (in blue) and baby girls were dressed as boys (in pink)."
via guardian.co.uk

"According to the website 'Gender Specific Colors,' it would seem that assigning color to gender is mostly a 20th century trait. It would also seem that at one time, the color associations were reversed when color first came into use as a gender identifier. In fact, this reversal of what we consider 'normal' was considered conventional, even in the early 20th century."
via GoogleAnswers

image via GenderBaby