The Silly Season has an extended run this year, or so it would seem, given the BBC News headlines. Normally I skip over the less serious headlines, but one caught my eye. “Should we not dress girls in pink?” the story’s title asked. There’s no doubt about it but that pink is hot. Too hot, in fact.

Don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing intrinsically evil about pink. It looks good on sunrises, salmon, and the little woodland wildflowers called, quite rightly, fire pinks. But enough, already! For several years now, pink has been the default “women’s color.” Clothing, or gear, or whatever—if it was made (or sized or shaped) for gals, you could bet on it being pink. To be fair, there are usually other color choices. All too often, however, these choices are limited to subdued pastel shades or “fun prints,” none of which would be my first choice (or even my second) for cycling along busy roads, mucking around in the mud and swamps, or paddling in waters frequented by vessels bigger and faster than mine. And what about hunting season? I don’t want to walk on the wild side in autumn wearing a bobcat print! That was one of last spring’s “fun prints” on offer for L.L. Bean’s women’s wellies, by the way. What were L.L.’s heirs thinking? Being mistaken for a biggish cat by a man or woman with a gun in hand and an itch for a fur-trimmed jacket isn’t my idea of fun.

OK. Memo to L.L. Bean, Performance, Nashbar, and all other outfitters, too: Some women love pink. But other women hate it. And whether we love it or hate it, all of us—many of us, anyway; I haven’t taken a poll—want to have a choice, particularly when our safety hangs in the balance. Subtle pastels, “fun prints,” and gauzy pinks are fine. For them as wants ‘em, that is. Just give the rest of us some bright, solid colors. And there’s nothing inherently unfeminine about traditional greens and browns, either. Read more…

 
Send a Comment