Abigail Byrd

When we think of pink and blue as colors that we see everyday, objects come to mind: flowers or bubble gum or waves in the ocean. But, when putting them together, you get “pink and blue”, a concept widely associated with gender. As the colors merge, the ideas behind them become more complex. It become pink versus blue, girls versus boys, femininity versus masculinity. These divides and characteristics are constantly reinforced by modern day products, media, and advertising making the fixation seems so normal, so set in stone. In actuality, the switch to pink for girls and blue for boys happened less than a century ago.

Before the mid 19th century, most children wore white dresses, purely for practicality. White cloth was easy to make and easy to bleach and dresses were easier to handle than pants and a shirt. Because of this, there was never a clear sign plastered to kids that screamed “I’m a girl” or “I’m a boy”, something that is so common in children’s clothing today. Even as pastels emerged in children’s fashion, there wasn’t a strict code specifying which colors went with which gender. But it didn’t take long for some regulations to emerge and, until World War II, pink was actually for boys, while blue was for girls. Jeanne Maglaty, a editor for Smithsonian magazine, says that pink was “a more decided and stronger color”, better for boys, while blue was seen as “more delicate and dainty, prettier for the girl”. Time magazine even printed a chart in 1927 showing gender appropriate colors according to big name U.S. stores at the time, and pink was much more popular for boys than girls. But, as most fads do, that fashion gradually faded away. In fact, it did more than that. It reversed drastically and, by the end of World War II, pink was for girls and blue was for boys.

There was no real driving force behind the switch. One theory is that the change was caused by a misprint in a magazine, but that’s never been proven. Whatever it was, the newly gendered colors spread rapidly, and not only in the United States. During the war, Adolf Hitler had gay individuals labeled with a pink triangles, instigating the association between femininity and pink. Later, as America settled down after the war and common gender stereotypes were reinforced by the rebirth of the traditional family unit, the Baby Boomers were born. These children, who would grow up to have an enormous influence on the world we live in today, were raised with the pink for girls and blue for boys fashion. This generation carried this trend into the 21st century, where so much has changed but, for some reason, this idea has stayed the same.

In our modern world, you don’t have to look far to find the pink for girls, blue for boys mindset. It only takes one glance at a baby to tell what gender they are, based on their clothing. Toy aisles seem like completely different worlds, some riddled with army men and earthy tones and others with Barbie dolls and every shade of pink imaginable. Why is this? Why would a trend that’s so seemingly arbitrary last all these years? One reason, besides the influence of the Baby Boomers, is because of the emergence of prenatal testing. Knowing the sex of your baby before birth allows time for planning and preparation, which usually comes in the form of decoration and gifts. Expecting parents are now able to accurately paint their nursery walls different shades of blush and bashful for a little girl or dark navy blue for a little boy. Families can buy gender specific clothing to give the new baby, such as a bright pink onesie that says “pretty like mommy” across the front. And, as the child grows, so does their interest in toys. Little girls receive toy kitchens and playsets decked out in pink bows and frills while boys get tool sets and plastic dinosaurs. These common themes are just as evident in 2015 as they were in the mid 1900s. But, today, it seems that there is less emphasis on blue for boys and much more on pink for girls. Anything that isn’t rose or violet is considered masculine and boyish. But, they’re just colors, right? On the surface, that’s true. Pink and blue are just colors. A study from the Newcastle University in the UK proved that the fixation on pink and blue could have happened just as easily with any other color. Humans were shown to have tendencies to hyperfocus on the colors associated with their groups, just like girls and boys do with the colors pink and blue. The infatuation is inevitable and, with the constant reference to these colors and the group they are associated with, it’s almost unavoidable.

There is no denying the underlying characteristics of the pink and blue concept. Pink means girly, which, stereotypically, means feminine, domestic, and weak. Blue, on the other hand, means masculine, tough, and dominating. These roles and colors are undeniably correlated throughout history, from the domestic life after World War II to the ongoing feminist movement in our world today. People in the modern world are beginning to wonder about the psychological effects of these colors. Are the children growing up in the 21st century being harmed by the constant pressure to conform to traditional gender roles? Some say no, that the stereotypes associated with pink and blue are simply human nature. But others are more concerned about the nurture aspect, as that nature, for the most part, has been disproven. The kickstarter “Princess Awesome” just released a gender-neutral clothing line for you girls, stating that “girls shouldn’t have to decide between dresses and dinosaurs, or ruffles and robots.” Many toy companies are also making the gradual switch to gender neutral products and advertising, a change that was brought on by the “Let Toys Be Toys” campaign. Also, social media has brought these issues into the spotlight of today’s society like never before. Through platforms such as Twitter and Instagram, people have initiated a nationwide conversation about gender stereotyping and discrimination, all stemming back to children and the pressures placed on them at such a young age. Pressures to conform to roles that are considered “normal” are projected to kids through advertising, media, and, of course, the repeated idea that pink is for girls and blue is for boys. Organizations like the ones I mentioned earlier are advocating for a change to lessen the the influence of this arbitrary and outdated concept. They, along with all the people speaking up about this issue are hoping that someday soon we will, once again, be able to think of blue and pink aso nothing more than colors.

Arthur Miller’s The Crucible opens on the quiet town of Salem, Massachusetts, where, behind closed doors, chaos is beginning. Although the story is fictional, it deals with a very real historical issue: witch hunts in America during the 1500s, which were caused by deceit, fear, and religious discipline that led to an outbreak of mass hysteria. Now, this type of hysteria may seem like an ancient idea, predating modern psychological understanding. However, today’s equivalent, mass psychogenic illness, is more common than you would think. As defined by sociologist Robert Bartholomew and psychiatrist and Simon Wessely, Mass Psychogenic Illness, or MPI, is “the rapid spread of illness signs and symptoms affecting members of a cohesive group, originating from a nervous system disturbance involving excitation, loss or alteration of function, whereby physical complaints that are exhibited unconsciously have no corresponding organic aetiology.” Basically, MPI a regular illness. Symptoms arise from being exposed to an afflicted individual, and are then passed to the next person, so on and so forth. The main difference is that mass psychogenic outbreaks are caused not by a physical ailment, but by a mental infection stemming from a surge in stress and anxiety levels.

There are two types of MPI, “anxiety hysteria” and “motor hysteria. Anxiety hysteria, a short-lived type of MPI, is not serious and but quite common, with benign symptoms such as dizziness, headache, fainting, and hyperventilation. The second category, motor hysteria, is significantly less common and much more serious, with symptoms such as twitching, shaking, paralysis, and uncontrollable laughter or weeping. Most cases of MPI dissipate on their own because the stressor is eventually eliminated. However, in some cases, direct action is needed. These types of serious outbreaks, although more common today, have been occurring, and going undiagnosed, for centuries.

Although MPI is a fairly new term, originating in the 20th century, sociologist Robert Bartholomew states that there have been over 6,000 major cases of mass psychogenic illness dating back to the 1500s. Until more modern understandings of mental illness came about, these outbreaks were either written off as insanity, or considered to be a religious and supernatural event, such as demonic possession or witchcraft. One widespread outbreak originated in convents, where groups of nuns across the globe suffered from bouts of mass motor hysteria, including fits of screaming, crying, abnormal movements, and trance-like paralysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry states that “there are more than 100 books alone on the outbreaks [in nunneries] at Loudun, France, between 1632 and 1634”. In the 19th century, the industrial revolution created a new trigger of extensive social anxiety: Factories, which were notorious for their low wages, terrible conditions, and disregard for safety regulations. The fear of contamination and illness, as well as the stress created by the oppressive employment, led to mass motor hysteria outbreaks in many Western job settings. As the 19th century came to a close and “occupational health and safety regulations” were reformed, these issues were quickly replaced by the new anxieties people across the world still face today.

Beginning in the early 1900s, MPI triggers shifted instead to environmental and social concerns. Vaccinations, a controversial topic in the modern medical community, have become linked to MPI in recent years. The Journalism of the Royal Society of Medicine reports that in 1998, the fear of the tetanus-diphtheria toxoid vaccination caused anxiety hysteria in over 800 adolescents in Jordan. A similar incident occurred involving the human papillomavirus vaccination, which costed its production company $1 billion. A second, more sinister stressor that triggers MPI is the fear of terrorism and chemical and biological warfare. Although these types of episodes aren’t prevalent in the US right now, the Department of Homeland Security is becoming increasingly concerned, stating that “an outbreak of mass psychogenic illness in the Homeland related to terrorism or the threat of terrorism is possible”, and recent incidents have implicated that the likelihood will continue to increase. They cite an outbreak that occurred in the Shelkov region of Chechnya in 2005. After rumors of a chemical weapons attack in the area, 13 students exhibited symptoms of headache, fever, and numbness of their arms and legs. Although no chemicals were actually released, the symptoms continued to spread, and 87 people were eventually hospitalized, suffering from psychogenic illness caused by the presence of Russian soldiers near the region. A separate but equally troubling aspect of MPI is the growing extent of the illnesses’ spread, thanks to mass media and social media. Although there isn’t enough information to study their prolonged effects on MPI, it is easy to see the correlation between them- if an incident receives more media coverage, the anxiety and fear of it increases, which lead to an greater likelihood of an outbreak. Social media has also played a part in this by spreading the reach of our communications. Ideas, fears, and anxiety, which used to be fairly isolated, can spread across the globe in a matter of seconds, carrying the risk and symptoms of MPI with them. In 2013, an episode in Le Roy, New York sparked this discussion. Eighteen female high school students developed Tourette’s-like tics, from spasms to violent outbursts, caused not by environmental triggers, but by watching a Youtube video of a girl who actually had a similar syndrome. This outbreak triggered much media noise and controversy, but, when media coverage of the incident ended, the girls recovered. This correlation goes to show that the uproar created and spread by news reports and media attention did have a significant effect on that situation, and could on similar MPI outbreaks in the future.

It comes as no surprise that MPI is more common today than ever before. Anxiety is now a commonplace, with rational and irrational fears growing every day because of technological and societal advances. Thankfully, we now have enough knowledge about MPI that drastic situations, such as the ones in the middle ages, are able to be understood and dealt with accordingly, without executions or exorcism. As the nature of stressors and anxieties shifts in our changing world, so must our understanding of them. Humans will continue to react the same way to triggers, whatever they may be, because of our biological and psychological makeup. So, when odd and widespread symptoms arise in times of stress, we can known that, no matter what, we are all in this together.

There are many arguable points within the Church’s teachings on abortion, but a main contradiction within them is the idea that the right to life trumps everything else. The contradiction stems from the idea that, with these teachings, the Church is aiming to illegalize abortion throughout the United States. Without this goal applied to a society-wide institution, the teachings are nothing more than words on paper to those who are not a part of the Church. However, it is completely impractical to assume that Church teachings, such as these, could ever be used as the basis of a law, since those beliefs do not apply to every citizen and, therefore, cannot be forced upon them. Furthermore, while the Church is preaching on the horrors of abortion and the effect it has on the sanctity of human life, they are not taking into account the practicality of the message they are sending. By teaching that abortion is wrong and should not happen under any circumstances, they are not actually doing anything to actively end abortion, at least not on a large scale. Even if laws were passed based on these ideas, studies have shown time and time again that restrictions on abortion will not lessen the amount of abortions that happen and will only make them more dangerous for the mother. The argument that, even if it doesn’t lessen the amount of abortions, it still changes the morals of the country, directly contradicts the teaching that the right to life is inalienable and comes before anything. By settling for only changing the theoretical “morals” of a country without lessening the physical act of abortion, the Church is placing the value of the human life below the value of the theoretical shift in morals. What makes that contradiction even more dire is the fact that there are practical things the Church could be doing to actively reduce the amount of abortions in the status quo, the easiest of which is changing their abstinence-based sexual education programs and teachings in schools. By teaching anyone, especially young students, that the only way to avoid pregnancy is to not have sex, the Church is ignoring the entirety of the issue, because, the fact is, abstinence-based education does not work. Many young people have sex regardless and, because of this type of education, do not have the knowledge necessary to prevent pregnancy, since they have only been told not to have sex in the first place. By incorporating safe-sex education into Catholic teachings, the amount of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, especially teen pregnancies, which have a high possibility of resulting in abortion, would decrease dramatically, thereby decreasing the amount of abortions that happen as of now. Moreover, the Church would not even need to change its stance on premarital sex or contraception in order to do so. For example, the Church teaches that you should not lie, steal, or kill, but offers reconciliation and a way back to God if a person commits one of those sins, and many more, any number of times. They are not saying it is okay to lie, steal, and kill, but they are offering a backup plan. The same goes for Sex Ed. The Church can still teach abstinence and chastity, have a stance against birth control, and say that, by going against these, you are going against God, but can also offer contraception as a backup, especially since, by doing this, they would be correcting the contradiction in their own teachings on the inalienable value of life itself.

To vote, or not to vote: that is the question

Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to accept

Either outcome of this election, both unfortunate,

Or take arms against the lesser of two evils,

And by opposing, hope to end one. To join, to speak-

That day- and by speaking attempt to curb the very course of history,

Voice however small, rising against the tide of partisan politics

Which by defying logic and truth attempt to run our world! ‘Tis a situation

Devoutly to be wished against. To join, to speak-

To speak- perchance to choose: ay, there’s the rub,

For in that choice of commander-in-chief what toils may come.

In being forced to appoint a mortal, most unideal

We must give pause. Growing dissent regarding common good

Makes the calamity of outcomes both equally rife:

For who would bear the issues of the current day,

The environment’s wrongs, the proud man’s conceal-and-carry,

The equality of love, the law enforcement's lack of delay,

The injustice of immigration, and the increasingly escalating cost

That patients still manage due to ineffective health care?

When neither he nor she inspire passion or even satisfaction

In the hearts and minds of their collective representation,

When glaring flaws overshadow the substance of their actual politics,

We look towards our future with doubt.

Which puppet will better bear the ills we have,

As well as ones we know not of yet?

And will casting a ballot prove advantageous

To standing idly by, hurling towards the undiscovered country

On the backs of the electorate? There is no true answer.

Thus the nation’s hue of democratic process

Is sicklied o’er on the pale cast of November 8th,

And even those of great passion and movement

With regard and indecisiveness turn awry

And question their means of action.

Created a website today. Feeling indifferent.