Legal blogger Ann Althouse brought to light a rather strange and (in my ever so humble opinion) lawsuit yesterday: Former University of Iowa professor Jill Gaulding is suing the University under Title IX because the school has refused to re-paint the football stadium’s visitor locker room (which, as you can see in this image, is a tasteful muted pink deemed ‘dusty rose’ by the paint producer), which Gaulding claims constitutes institutionalized sexual discrimination, as the color conveys misogyny and homophobia.
Take a minute and swirl that around your glass for a second, folks: Pink in a locker room equates sexual discrimination.
Now, even if you’re going to completely disregard then-coach Hayden Fry’s stated motivation for choosing the color (Fry was a former psych student who’d read about pink’s calming effect in jail cells and the like), it’s pretty hard to argue with his further statements from his autobiography: “Most don’t notice it, but those that do are in trouble. . . . When I talk to an opposing coach before a game and he mentions the pink walls, I know I’ve got him. I can’t recall a coach who has stirred up a fuss about the color and then beat us.“.
It seems strange to me to claim that pink walls constitute sexual discrimination when the only people who could conceivably be upset by the walls are those players/coaches who are misogynistic or homophobic enough to think that the color matters in the slightest, but then again I have an inordinate love for Hello! Kitty and disco. So what do I know?