Why is it that women are expected to be more inclined to wear flashier, brighter, lighter colors, and men the darker tones? We do not exhibit sexual dimorphism with bright feathers or any other changes in color. How did we come to view certain colors as masculine and certain colors as femenine?
Perhaps it was equating women to flowers; things considered delicate. Perhaps the darker tones helped men hunt (wait... don't we all want to know how to hide?) That doesn't ring so well with me though... Colors used to be a mark of wealth; crtain dyes were expensive. And I would imagine, if you were secure enough not to have to dress up like a tree, that's considered better, right? What was it like before colors were common? Is this just a natural progression of women-for-display men-for-manly-work?
What's it like to be uninhibited by color? Not just in what colors you are willing to wear, but what you find attractive on yourself and on others... Are they not the same cues? What about the colorblind or the impact of the colorblind on our perceptions of color?
Oh yes, and what about the community's colors? I suppose it's on the femenine side of things? Any suggestions on a more 'neutral' colorscheme?
November 2 2005, 17:18:15 UTC 12 years ago
remember back in the late early 80's when it was stylish for men to wear pink, purple, and baby blue? but that was a really short period of time. maybe dark colors are 'masculine' because they're power colors. and women where colors to be noticed 'cuz we're smaller? i know that back in the 80's or 90's, the women in Congress brought in a consultant and found out that they - and their views - got noticed more during sessions if they wore brightly colored suits. otherwise, they were just overpowered by the sea of men.
November 2 2005, 17:27:33 UTC 12 years ago
November 2 2005, 18:44:24 UTC 12 years ago
November 3 2005, 01:30:52 UTC 12 years ago
November 3 2005, 07:29:09 UTC 12 years ago