One thing struck me last night as I was pondering the Pink Book, and that is the fact that it is pink. The opening page is pink and flowery. Policies, statistics and other important points are made in hot pink. Roses litter the pages and the accent colour is a pale pink.
Why was pink chosen instead of some other colour?
Why not white?
Better yet, why not blue?
Instinctively, the answer is that "pink is for girls, blue is for boys." In order to distinguish themselves as a women's group fighting for women's issues, the colour chosen for the Liberal Women's Caucus policy book was a stereotyped colour: pink. If you are trying to break down stereotypes, to advance the cause of a particular group, why would you then work within the stereotype for that group? If a similar group existed for men's causes, is it likely that they would decorate their policy book with hunting gear, cigars and sports symbols?
I am sure that, were you to put the question "Why Pink?" to the Liberal Women's caucus, their answer would be that they wanted to add a woman's touch to the project, that they wanted to distinguish themselves as women, to show that in a man's world you can still keep a feminine side. In reality, that doesn't answer the question. It does not address the fact that pink is not the way to do this. In fact, their excessive use of pink only goes to show that despite a vain attempt to be "empowered" women, the Liberal Women's Caucus cannot move beyond the stereotypes. This is yet another reason to file their Pink Book under the desk.