Today I’d like to talk about gender norms, which are one of my biggest pet peeves, and something I think a lot about. It’s always a debate how much of gender (note: ‘gender’ as the socio-cultural reality of being male or female, which is different than sexual dimorphism, or the physical differences between the two sexes) is biological and how much is societal, and like most things in life, the answer is probably a little of column A, a little of column B. But I think every Modern Girl–and Modern Guy, too–should spend some time mulling over the subject of gender “abnorms” and coming to their own conclusions about what suits them best. Just my opinion, like everything else in this blog.
Boys: I have long found it fascinating that Women’s Magazines reveal an entirely different standard of beauty for women than Men’s Magazines, and what this reflects about society. Most Women’s fashion magazines feature thin, size 0-2 models, often in awkward “high-fashion” poses, while Men’s lad’s Magazines often feature curvier, full-bodied, size 8-10 models in sexy “erotic” poses. Clearly, Men and Women in popular culture seem to have different ideas of what’s hot and what’s not.
Personally, I have a theory about fashion rags which will probably offend fashion-lovers everywhere, but here it goes: in fashion magazines and on run-ways, in print ads and on billboards, the women are not meant to be seen and noticed–the clothes are. This, in essence, makes women the mere carriers of the clothes, the literal and figurative hangers for clothing. Ever looked at a hanger? It’s skinny, wiry, and uninteresting. You hardly notice it as you reach for your favorite dress in the back of your closet. It’s job is to carry the clothes, and that’s it. The same logic applies to women. Fashion models aren’t MEANT to be sexy, because than the viewer/consumer’s attention will be on the sexy lady, and not on the clothes. The more un-erotic the woman is, the more the focus is on the clothes. So a sexy, voluptuous fashion model jutting out her hips and sticking out her ass is going to sell clothes less well than a skinny, awkward model tucking everything in. See below, and tell me which picture is more about the outfit, and which is more about the model:
This is why the fact that I’m not a size 2 fashion model doesn’t bother me when it comes to boys, and why I hope it won’t bother you either. Most boys, contrary to what the media and the fashion rags tell you, typically dislike super ridiculously anorexically skinny women, and prefer women with, in their words, “a little more meat on their bones,” as their magazines clearly demonstrate. (Not every guy has this preference of course, but considering their biological programming, it’s safe to say many do.) At least amongst the guys I know, “a little cushion for the pushin” is hot, rail-thin is not. Of course, some body types ARE naturally thin, and that’s A-OK–I know a lot of beautiful girls who are extremely thin naturally, such as my friend V-Day, who has always been on the slender side. But an alarming number of women have cultivated dangerous eating disorders in contemporary times, many desperate to be considered “beautiful” and “attractive.” But I say that if your aim in starving yourself, throwing up your food, or obsessing about how fat you are when according to all medical definitions you’re perfectly healthy, is due to anxiety over guys, this anxiety is completely wasted, not to mention counter-productive. Keep your hangers in the closet where they belong, most guys don’t want to date them.
Beauty: Personally, I support all different kinds of beauty, and think there is no one definition of ‘beautiful.’ Beauty is obviously socio-cultural dependent, as different cultures across different time periods have valued and enhanced different aspects of humanity’s physical appearance. According to archeological evidence, cosmetics, for example, were utilized by many ancient cultures long before Max Factor and Co. was founded in 1909. In China, for example, “the custom of coloring one’s nails can be traced as far back as 3000 BCE” (Source).
Interestingly, much like contemporary times, ancient cultures also seemed to share penchant for thin body types–but they seem to be more reflective of contemporary reality! (Unlike today, where even though size 2 is popular, the average American woman is “5’4″ tall, weighs 145 lbs. with a dress size of 11 to 14, has a 36-37″ bust, is about 29″ around the waist and close to 40″ around the hips” source) Egyptian art depicts the ideal feminine form as “a youthful and slim figure with narrow hips, which anthropometric studies of pharaonic mummies have revealed is a fair representation of reality, at least in the case of Egyptian women” (source), while classical Chinese beauty was defined in the 57th poem in the Shuo Ren (The Book of Odes):
Her fingers were like the blades of the young white-grass;
Her skin was like congealed ointment;
Her neck was like the tree-grub;
Her teeth were like melon seeds;
Her forehead cicada-like; her eyebrows like silkworm antenne;
What dimples, as she artfully smiled!
How lovely her eyes, with the black and white so well defined!
(Source)
However, after the Chinese Revolution and the founding of the People’s Republic of China, health and strength became more desirable in a wife than insect-like frailty, and so the peasant look of ruddy cheeks and stout wrists and ankles came into fashion. Enhancing one’s appearance was viewed as decadent and overindulgent, so no makeup, short hair, and an army uniform became the norm. With China’s gradual opening to the rest of the world in the 70’s and 80’s, Western looks and fashion, especially curled hair, started influencing traditional Eastern culture, creating an interesting mix of style and aesthetics that are still evolving to this day. You might be surprised to learn that recently Gender Neutral has become all the rage, as evidenced by the winner of Super Girl 2005 (China’s “American Idol”), Li Yuchun, a pop star who looks extremely androgynous (Wiki Article: Li Yuchun)
So essentially, Chinese beauty has changed a LOT over the years, demonstrating that no one standard of beauty ever lasts forever. Right now, we may live in a society where most female celebrities feel compelled to dye their hair blond, but this is only a fleeting definition of societal beauty, one as likely to last as the in-vogue Chinese military uniforms of yester-year. I remain hopeful that the pendulum will continue to swing, beauty standards will continue to evolve, and eventually different kinds of beauty will be embraced and sampled. A girl can dream, anyway.
Brains: In my Children’s Literature class senior year of college, we touched upon the subject of gendered toys, something I feel strongly about are a terrible thing for society. If you go to any Toys ‘R Us or toy shop you will notice a very clear division between the so-called “boy” section and the “girl” section. The boy section’s colors are usually blue, and sometimes red and black, while the girls is usually pink and purple and sometimes white. The boys section usually features inter-active toys like building sets, model trains and cars, violent weapons, and action figures. The girls section usually features a lot of dolls, stuffed animals, musical instruments, and model domestic kits (baking ovens, washing-machines, make-up kits, etc.) Sadly, sometimes even when it’s the same exact product being sold, the marketing package is different for boys and girls, like in the case of diapers. Diapers, obviously, have nothing to do with gender, yet girl diapers have pictures of princesses and boys have pictures of cars. Go figure. From the earliest days of life, babies are gendered, as boys are considered “cute,” girls are considered “beautiful”
Many psychologists, sociologists, and feminists have spent time analyzing gender norms in toys, and the debate still rages to this today. On the biological side, proponents claim children like what they like “naturally,” attributing differences to evolutionary theory, as in primitive pre-historical times, women cared for the babies while men hunted for food, hence girls’ love for baby dolls and boys’ love for weapons. Strong evidence to support this theory stems from experiments with non-human primates, such as the extremely famous study conducted by Gerianne M. Alexander of Texas A&M University and Melissa Hines of City University in London in 2002, which concluded vervet monkeys showed the same sex-typical toy preferences as humans; “In an incredibly ingenious study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, Alexander and Hines gave two stereotypically masculine toys (a ball and a police car), two stereotypically feminine toys (a soft doll and a cooking pot), and two neutral toys (a picture book and a stuffed dog) to 44 male and 44 female vervet monkeys. They then assessed the monkeys’ preference for each toy by measuring how much time they spent with each. Their data demonstrated that male vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the masculine toys, and the female vervet monkeys showed significantly greater interest in the feminine toys. The two sexes did not differ in their preference for the neutral toys.”
(Source)
So at least in some sense, biological differences do seem to account for part of the differences in gendered toy preference. On the other hand, however, humans are not monkeys, and though we share a common ancestor, we are still more highly evolved and capable of more rational thought. In today’s times, women can be more than child-carers, and men can be more than hunters, and this is generally accepted–or should be, at any rate–as a Good Thing. Yes these biological differences exist and yes they do play a role, but they are not the end all or be all root of gender, which is a highly artificial and arguably antiquated delineation imposed on society, previously by necessity, now by tradition.
Ultimately, what once began as a biological imperative has now become a bastion of conservativism, in my humble opinion, as staunch, narrow-minded traditionalists cling to the old relics of gender norms, desperate to make sure little boys know they are boys and little girls know they are girls. Most parents, sadly, do not even realize the heavy-handed gender socialization they are inflicting on their children when they only buy traditional boy or girl toys instead of buying both or seeking out gender neutral toys, while others literally freak out if they catch their son with a pair of oven mitts in his hands playing with his sister’s Easy Bake Oven, even though many girls enjoy playing with stereotypically boys toys and visa versa. My brother might kill me for admitting this publicly, but I, in fact, loved playing with my his toy train set, and he loved playing with my sister’s doll house! To us, toys were toys, no matter the gendered packaging–a philosophy I fully intend on passing onto my own future children, as I hope to discourage hyper-gender-socilization and encourage gender neutrality.
At the end of the day, of course, kids will like what they like and there’s no point trying to dissuade or change them. If your little girl likes to play with trucks, you should buy her trucks. And if she likes to play with dolls, you should buy her dolls. But she can’t possibly know what she might like unless you expose her to both, and THAT’S where the modern parenting comes in. I was fortunate enough to have a brother growing up, so I was modernly exposed to “boys toys” as a kid purely on accident. Though I loved my Barbies and stuffed animals, I also discovered how much I love little toy wooden trains, and had fun playing with both. In my ideal world, toys would be gender neutral, and it’d be possible to buy toys that didn’t fall into these categories. But for now, until this utopia happens, I’m not advocating denying boys their trucks and trains or girls their dolls and plushies, I’m simply advocating exposing children to BOTH kinds of stereotypically masculine and feminine toys, and allowing them to choose what they like best.
Boys Beauty and Brains 