Pink is a gender neutral color

The color pink is associated with girls.  This is a universal concept. Men don't wear pink, and are generally reluctant to have any accouterments that are even remotely pinkish in color. Girls, on the other hand, from a very tender age, are drawn to this color. My five year old daughter is literally living a pink life - pink clothes, pink room, pink bed, pink bedcover, pink pillow, pink comforter ... you get the idea. She started playing soccer today, and it is not hard to guess the color of her cleats, socks, and shin guards. Yes, they are all pink. 

The question is - Why is pink associated with girls? The association of pink with femininity is a rather recent concept, and an Occidental one at that. It only became noticeable in the 1940s, and there are no definite or documented origins for this association. It is one of those things that just happened slowly. It has been said that it was brought about in the USA by President Eisenhower's wife's pink inaugural gown. It has also been claimed that Barbie might have played a significant role. When I was growing up in India a lifetime ago, before television and Internet had invaded our lives, pink was not a girl's color at all. Many males, including yours truly, comfortably sported pink shirts at the very least. In fact, traditional male Indian garbs and headgear from several parts of the country still have pink hues.  

So do Occidental men hate the color? Is that why this association happened? I think I can categorically say - NO. If they did, girls would have stopped wearing pink once they got to an age where they discovered boys and quickly realized that wearing pink is a definite deterrent to attracting male attention. The very fact that girls and women of all ages don copious amounts of pink indicates very clearly that men actually love the color, at least on the fairer sex. So, is the reason then that pink suits girls much better than they suit boys? This is not even a point worth arguing. The color has nothing to do with anatomical differences between sexes, since the color is not limited to garments. It is everywhere, from shoes to cellphone colors to cars. It cannot be based on looks because pretty and ugly are purely subjective concepts. Babies look pretty in any color, regardless of sex. 

So, what is it then? I believe, at this point, it is simply peer pressure and a demonstration of the control exerted by society over man. Men don't wear pink simply because other men laugh at them if they do. Their wives and girlfriends refuse to go with them, and their children innocently state, "Dad, you are weird!" We are social animals, and for the most part our lives are governed and dictated by social trends. And this association of pink with femininity is simple a very strong demonstration of that. We have seen many brave men, men who have dared to defy the social norms of their times. Men Like King, Gandhi, and Mandela fought and emerged victorious against racial discrimination, caste system, and apartheid respectively. They were able to move huge masses with their words and actions, and convince them to support their cause and fight and die for it. 

But the world is still waiting for that brave man who will be able to come out and declare that pink is a gender neutral color, will have the guts to have a wardrobe dominated by pink, drive a pink car, have a pink cellphone cover and wear pink shoes. And, by the looks of it, this is going to be a long wait. A really, really long one.

Spasmodically Social

Being social comes easily to some people. They are the social type. They become socialites, or politicians, or start cults or revolutions. To some others, it is an extremely arduous task at the very least. These people are the unsocial type, usually recluses, and become authors, or scientists, or hackers. However, both these sections of society form a minority, even when combined together. The remaining population hovers somewhere in between these two extremities. These are the somewhat social people. They can be very social within some groups, and not social at all in another. The groups they can open up to become their friends, lovers and allies. The group they cannot associate with comprise of their enemies, and nemeses. 

However, I think that there is a fourth, hitherto formally unidentified, group when it comes to social behavior. This group comprises of people whose ability to be social is governed by the calendar. This is not entirely an unknown phenomenon. It, in current parlance, is identified by the phrase - "woke up on the wrong side of the bed". Some days we wake up and feel social. On those days, we can be social rock-stars. Some days, I surprise even myself with my ability to be social. I am the cynosure of all eyes, the beacon of a gathering. However, I should mention that those days are few and far between. But they happen, and they tell me that I know how to be social. Most of the other days, I wake up and feel like my more familiar usual self - extremely unsocial or at best socially awkward. On those days, I spend most of my time staring at my toes. I hate mankind, and even some animals if they nuzzle up to me. I brood at gatherings, and sullenly mutter curses under my breath. 

There are two factors that differentiate us from the somewhat social group. First, our ability to be social is not determined by our company. We can be completely social and completely unsocial with the same group of people on different days of the month. The other factor is that there is no middle ground between our two extremes of social behavior. There is never a day when we feel somewhat social. Ergo I believe that it is time to formally recognize us and give us the social status we deserve. We are the socially spasmodic. Or maybe we are the spasmodically social? We will be extremely happy or utterly disgusted with either coinage depending on the day of the month.