I just finished listening to Sue Palmer, the author of Toxic Childhood, which was the hook for that bafflingly ridiculous BBC article about how girls' brainwashed obsession with the color pink is bad--even if it doesn't alter their DNA.
Palmer was talking to the CBC, a show called The Current [it's online here]. Frankly, to me it sounded like the pink thing is just an excuse for her to criticize TV and kid-targeted marketing: "Pink is the symptom," she said, not the problem. She pegged the Pink For Girls Hegemony to the early 1990s and the introduction of children's television networks, which gave advertisers the all-powerful means to "brainwash" kids. She said "brainwash" like a hundred times.
For their part, the CBC tried to flesh out the interview with some digging into the process by which pink became the girls' color, and blue the boys', but it really didn't amount to much. The Nazi pink triangle expert they brought on just talked about pink as a universally recognized feminine color--and then he cited the US, where girl babies are all wrapped in pink blankets...
And we're right back to where we started, with a couple of historical anecdotes--presumably taken from the foreword to Palmer's book--but no real understanding of how this pink/blue cultural construct came to be. So if you can't come up with the title of a solidly researched, feminist history of the color pink, someone better come up with a thesis proposal like, yesterday. Meanwhile, my own theory is pretty cut & dry: it's all Kay Thompson's fault: