Blue for Girls and Pink for Boys

Is there anything wrong with the heading?
Nope! why do you think so?
It's the other way; isn't it?
Really? who told you that?
I do see by myself.
How?




a google search would give you enough data...see the following!

Oh! I should've mentioned the era. It's during 1920's.

-For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. 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 prettier for the girl.”- [1] [4]

 so, google tells you that there is a gender biasing in choice... If it is a property of males and females, it should've been there all the time; don't you think so?

I don't know

Well, how about the following? there is no color specification. Not even gender specification in costume. It's from 1980's

I know this; it's a unisex fashion!

Not really, you may call it as uniformity with a masculine inclination... and man never wore any feminine garments; what the market says feminine.

What do you mean by 'what the market says feminine'? What does the market has to do with it?

Well, let me ask you then; why don't men wear high heels?

It's been made only for women and not for men.

But no one is restricting them from wearing it.

People will call him insane then!

Why would they call so?

Because it's not socially accepted...

Where did the society get such an idea that men must not wear such chappals or shoes?

look at the followings... it's Louis XIV from 1700's

and, this is from 1980's.

They are not women certainly, are they? Moreover Louis XIV was a king of France. And they were very well accepted in the society; disproving your claim that 'it's not socially accepted' ! Let's modify your claim including the fact, 'It's dependent on the era they lived in'.

Also, high heels were considered as a symbol of status as well as masculinity . Women adopted heels to masculinise themselves. Until the end of 17th century European Upper class men followed this fashion. [2] [3]

So?

So, who made us think that it is not socially accepted?

From where do we get ideas of what a girl/ boy must wear?

Why don't boys wear necklaces as that of girls do, or as the given below old man from Kenya does ?

Why do girls tend to wear similar stuffs?

Why does movies make the girls' room pink in color; did they forgot the older analogy that pink is stronger color. Or was it a fallacy?

Moreover,

Provided there exists a gender biased fashion in all disciplines how are we supposed to think that we could build gender equality in society?

Or on what basis we criticize the new generation? when, they are being biased from their early age itself!

They don't even get a gender independent toy to play with...

We really need to think how to control the influence of market and trend in daily life, or else we don't even have the right to speak against gender discrimination.

Ref:

1. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/?no-ist

2. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21151350

3. http://qz.com/409254/why-did-men-stop-wearing-high-heels-anyway/

4.http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/04/when-unisex-was-the-new-black/390168/

'I'm Gonna Tell God Everything...'

The last thing a 3 year old Syrian said before he died;

"I'm gonna tell god everything"

It has been a very sensational news again on social media; projecting the dreadfulness of terrorism...

Various personalities around the world had marked their condolence for being killed at this small age, their solace that 'every child go to God's kingdom', some are angry such that they want to kill the terrorists who kill such 'cute', 'innocent' 'children' !!

One of the comment goes as follows [1].

" I CANNOT get my head around the fact that this is the world we live in. Where CHILDREN AND BABIES are abused and/or killed. I WOULD KILL EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN THIS WORLD THAT HAS MALICIOUS INTENT TOWARD CHILDREN IF I COULD. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. GLADLY!!!!! I DON'T CARE IF THOSE NUMBERS WERE IN THE MILLIONS!!!! There is NOTHING worse than hurting a child. NOTHING. I am very forgiving - but for that I will show you no mercy."
-and it has got 1029 likes-

why don't we call him a terrorist; the one who commented as above?! why does he get thousands of likes?

Some have said that 'god will punish the terrorists'

Assuming their feeling is intense,

Would they be saying the same if they are provided with a powerful gun and they happen to meet terrorists with bare hands? or will they kill the terrorists?

Will the 3 years old child be saying the same if he is self sufficient to 'fight against' the terrorists; who is not matured to think 'rationally' as the adults claim that they do...

By saying such a statement, the 3 year old child expressed his disagreement and rage towards the act/event that happened to 'HIM'. Of course a child wouldn't be able to think further that terrorism is not good for a world to sustain...

We had fights as children... whenever we failed in it we would say 'I'll tell this to mother/father'.

When a child say that he will tell this to god what I see is the depth of his belief in God and nothing else.

I wouldn't wonder if such a child, in future, fight against the world for 'his' God, the God who saved him throughout his life.

I wouldn't wonder if he kills everyone who stand against his God, as the person who wanted to kill the terrorists for killing 'children' in the above mentioned comment.

and I wouldn't wonder if he gets thousands of followers as the 1029 likes

Everyone would fight against them, who stand against their rights, their beliefs, their needs; IF they think, things are to be done 'right' or 'morally'.

Unfortunately there is no ultimate 'right' or 'morality'. For some, fighting for god is moral. For some, fighting against them who kill children is moral. 

No one would say Bhagat Singh was a bad person since he was a terrorist!

When atom bombs hit Japan we never considered America to be terrorist!

Who decides and how decides what is moral and hence terrorism?

Whenever we fight against terrorism we never consider the root causes of terrorism. (Or should I presume we are not mature enough to identify it; like the terrorists or the person who wanted to kill the terrorists???). What is/are the root cause/s of it?
Or
What are the backgrounds that make one terrorist?

As 'they' are being eliminated and isolated from the society in terms of infrastructures and rights no one can expect the terrorism to vanish at anytime. (Or are we eliminating a few from the society and label them as terrorists???)

Have you ever seen any terrorist who do not belong to any minority group of a society??? (or is majority the real terrorist and they assign the minority to be terrorists... as happened in Gujarat; the Islams were proclaimed to be the terrorist whereas Hindus lead the riots everywhere in 2002)

Ref:

1)..https://www.facebook.com/tyrese/photos/a.210952398932364.60528.199633956730875/877522965608634/

Plague, Noble Gases and Religious Riots

Plague:

We all know what Plague is; a deadly disease! Which once struck in Europe and took one third of the population. We know that the bacteria named Yersinia Pestis is the one behind it. Once it enter into your body, regardless the age, gender, education or economic status you would die; if you are not taking antibiotics. By taking precautions say quarantining the infected individuals, hygiene etc you could prevent it to an extend.


Noble Gases:

We have studied in school that Noble gases do not react. Well, until 1933 scientists believed so. Then, in 1933 Linus Pauling predicted the reaction of heavier noble gases with elements like Oxygen and Fluorine. Yet it took almost 30 years to experimentally establish it; in 1962.
Now we say that Noble gases react under extreme conditions like very high pressure and very low temperature. On changing the condition you can make your noble gas to be reactive or unreactive.


Religious Riots:

Nowadays everyone is screaming about 'religious issues' that we witness in India. 'Secularism', 'Intolerance', and 'Hindutva' etc can be found in everyday newspapers and other social medias; whenever some discussion starts on 'religious riot'.

If the problem was 'religious belief' we must find the same problem everywhere and in all disciplines in India; as in the case of plague -regardless the landscape, weather, age, education and economic status-.

But in fact we don't find such religious riots everywhere. We don't find writers being involved in such riots and killing each other. None of the scientists quarreled to death on their beliefs, while they launch rocket to space. None of the film stars said s/he will not do a role that is not of her/his religious belief. No businessman ever screamed his/her religious belief asks him/her to be satisfied with what they have.
So, its not like Plague!

We do find such riots in a very specific group, a group of deprived- who are suffering from the lack of basic facilities like food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, and money etc

Very strictly we do not find such riots among individuals with good standard of living, including economy; even though they also possess the very same beliefs...

Doesn't it dependent on the socio-economic background of an individual then? like the reaction of noble gas under certain conditions...

Should we narrow the problem of Secularism, and Intolerance of religion to merely religious beliefs???
Shouldn't it be treated as a social issue that arises from the socio-economic background of an individual or society???