Reverse-engineering our cultural programming
I should note for the record that my present haircut is a modified '30's bob that doesn't reach my collar in back and cut fairly close to my scalp, with a long forelock in front that comes about to the bottom of my jaw, and when I lie down and let it spill out, it's longer on the floor than I drew Dick Grayson's hair (though lacking the body with which Robin is usually drawn, alas.) Depending on how I comb it, it can either read as "butch" or "flapper", but it's not even approaching Late Beatles, let alone Bee Gees length.
A little experiment in coding, breaking down what exactly is necessary and sufficient for a figure to "read" as feminine, rather than unambiguously masculine.
Is it the tight pants?
Is this androgynous? If so, what makes the character ambiguously feminine, where other images in the same costume are not - or are they?
The long hair?
Is this one androgynous? Or does it read as masculine? Or is it disturbingly ambiguous? Why or why not? Does the pose make a difference?
What about this?
What cues, if any, change the impression?
--Is this image more feminine than this one? If so, why?
How much of what is coded as unmasculine is costume, or rather, how much of costume is not the general category (skin-tightness, bare flesh) but the fashion specifics which currently are coded as feminine and thus read as "unmanly" when placed upon an identical mannequin? If the exact same body is perceived as masculine or feminine depending only on the change of a wig and clothing, what does that tell us about our ability to discern gender without the aid of current culturally-determined trappings?
How much of what we consider to be "real" masculinity, and "real" femininity, are arbitrary and transient external conditions? How does this relate to social resistance to fashion changes, and to the inability of even those who consider themselves to be "open-minded" to cope with cross-dressing and trans-gendered people - as seen with the recent exclusion of Trans as a protected category from the symbolic attempt to pass Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
How much is dependent on the positioning? and the focus or lack thereof on a figure's sexuality, as presently coded primarily in pelvis and nipples? How much of the understanding of physical sexuality itself is coded, and dependent on other factors? (This needs more examples/comparisons, but is related to some guys having said that Wonder Woman, in her traditional outfit and depiction, reads to them as "androgynous.")
How much of a gender coding in positioning is related to signals of autonomy vs. subjection, action vs. passivity, even in scenes expressing injury or defeat? (Frex, compare and contrast.)
If an averted rather than a direct gaze is read as inherently feminine, what does that say about our expectations? About our assumptions regarding the "proper" role of men, vs. the "proper" state of women? If an artist's choice to focus on the buttocks, rather than the face of a character, in itself is sufficient to unman a character in our eyes, what does that say about our attitudes toward what the nature of women, and men, are supposed to be?
This would be an interesting one to remix, I think...as would this.
A little experiment in coding, breaking down what exactly is necessary and sufficient for a figure to "read" as feminine, rather than unambiguously masculine.
Is it the tight pants?
Is this androgynous? If so, what makes the character ambiguously feminine, where other images in the same costume are not - or are they?
The long hair?
Is this one androgynous? Or does it read as masculine? Or is it disturbingly ambiguous? Why or why not? Does the pose make a difference?
What about this?
What cues, if any, change the impression?
--Is this image more feminine than this one? If so, why?
How much of what is coded as unmasculine is costume, or rather, how much of costume is not the general category (skin-tightness, bare flesh) but the fashion specifics which currently are coded as feminine and thus read as "unmanly" when placed upon an identical mannequin? If the exact same body is perceived as masculine or feminine depending only on the change of a wig and clothing, what does that tell us about our ability to discern gender without the aid of current culturally-determined trappings?
How much of what we consider to be "real" masculinity, and "real" femininity, are arbitrary and transient external conditions? How does this relate to social resistance to fashion changes, and to the inability of even those who consider themselves to be "open-minded" to cope with cross-dressing and trans-gendered people - as seen with the recent exclusion of Trans as a protected category from the symbolic attempt to pass Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
How much is dependent on the positioning? and the focus or lack thereof on a figure's sexuality, as presently coded primarily in pelvis and nipples? How much of the understanding of physical sexuality itself is coded, and dependent on other factors? (This needs more examples/comparisons, but is related to some guys having said that Wonder Woman, in her traditional outfit and depiction, reads to them as "androgynous.")
How much of a gender coding in positioning is related to signals of autonomy vs. subjection, action vs. passivity, even in scenes expressing injury or defeat? (Frex, compare and contrast.)
If an averted rather than a direct gaze is read as inherently feminine, what does that say about our expectations? About our assumptions regarding the "proper" role of men, vs. the "proper" state of women? If an artist's choice to focus on the buttocks, rather than the face of a character, in itself is sufficient to unman a character in our eyes, what does that say about our attitudes toward what the nature of women, and men, are supposed to be?
This would be an interesting one to remix, I think...as would this.
