During my undergrad days, I remember walking across the campus one day to find two people standing in the middle of a hall. One was a woman, and the other a man. The two stood with their backs to each other, staring straight ahead, ignoring the strange looks they received from the people passing by. I walked closer to see them properly. The woman was wearing a pant and a shirt. It looked a little odd, as they seemed to have been clearly borrowed from a male friend, but still, it didn't seem like that big of a deal. Then I turned towards the man, and stopped short.
He was wearing a sari.
I stared at him for a few moments, trying to sort through my own reaction. The first, visceral reaction to this sight was: strange. Not in an indifferent, haan okay kind of way, but in a way where I could feel something twisting inside me - an uncomfortable kind of strange. When that reaction passed, the second one was that of respect and admiration at the man's willingness to do something that he was clearly going to face some backlash for.
But as I walked away, I couldn't help going back to that first reaction, questioning over and over again why I felt okay at the sight of the woman dressed in 'male clothing', whereas I couldn't extend that same nonchalance at the sight of the man dressed in 'female clothing'. After all, hadn't people often said that our patriarchal system made lives far more difficult and oppressive for women than for men? Then why was it that in this case, a woman was able to break her stereotypical boundaries far more easily than a man?
And then I began seeing glimpses of this difference all around me. Girls could wear blue without anyone creating a fuss, but boys wearing pink were made fun of. In fact, girls could now wear jeans, pants, t-shirts and shirts, but boys still couldn't wear skirts, dresses or heels. Girls were encouraged to play sports, and not see it as a male-only field; but few boys were encouraged to take up cooking or embroidery. Women in engineering classes were seen as a pleasant surprise, but men in arts classes were frowned upon. Women were joining the workforce in larger numbers, and this was seen as a positive step towards their empowerment; but men choosing to stay at home and take care of the children was looked down upon. Women were lauded for being tougher; men were shamed for being emotional.
Clearly, there was a trend here. As a 'progressive' society, we had become largely okay with women doing things that had been traditionally associated with men, but the reverse wasn't true. We were okay with women blurring the boundaries that differentiated males and females, encouraging even, but felt instantly unnerved and unsettled when men tried to do the same.
But why? Why were the two so different? Why were our reactions to them so different? How was a female adopting 'male traits' different from a man adopting 'female traits'?
Till date, whenever I had imagined society's perception of the male and female, I had assumed the two were on different sides, with a line going between them to show the boundaries. Based on this model, challenging social norms just meant doing what the other has traditionally done.
But then I began to realize, that perhaps this really isn't the right model. Sure, there's a line dividing the male and female, but the two aren't just on different sides: they're also on different levels. The male is positioned higher than the female.
Now, honestly, this wasn't a startling realization. Even as a 4-year-old, I had decided that being like a boy was definitely cooler than being like a girl. As a result, I had rejected skirts for shorts, dolls for cars, and playing house for playing cricket (despite having minimal love for the sport).
But almost 20 years later, I came back to analyze my own actions, realizing that the fact that I aspired to be more like the boys around me showed that I automatically viewed them to be at a higher position than myself and other girls. Evidently, I wasn't the only one who had this perception. Everyone believed it, though they never said it. Men were better than women. The characteristics of men were far superior than the characteristics of women. Everything associated with the masculine was something to aspire towards, whereas everything associated with the feminine was to be looked down at. Not only did this pose many problems for women (which was the common narrative), but it also posed challenges for men who connected with those so-called-feminine traits.
The bottom line really comes down to this - women can aspire to be more like men, but men should not aspire towards characteristics associated with women. That's it.
What a mess.
And unfortunately, this idea is so deeply ingrained within us, it prevents us from truly accepting people around us for the way they are. The judgement. It's all around us. It's also within us. He's a fashion designer? Must be gay, obviously. No straight man enjoys shopping or talking about clothes. That man is wearing heels! What is this world coming to?! These young people have no respect for society. Everything has limits, okay, and you need to stay by those limits. Why do you have to question and challenge everything? Why can't you just let some things be the way they are?! No man ever had a problem with wearing pants - where do you come off trying to stir all this trouble about letting them wear skirts? Listen, it's for their own good. Do you realize how much fun other kids will make of him if he goes out like this?! It's better for him if you teach him some social rules from now itself. He stays at home and looks after the kids while the wife works? Clearly, we know who's wearing the pants in that house!
But why is this a problem? For two primary reasons.
One, it limits choice. We might call ourselves liberal and progressive and open-minded, but every time we squirm and judge a man for wanting to wear pink, we're limiting his choices.
Two, it reinforces that idea that traditional feminine characteristics are inferior, and not something to aspire towards. Taking care of children is not aspirational. Cooking and cleaning and stitching are not aspirational. Displaying your emotions is not aspirational. Pink is not aspirational. Being like a girl is not aspirational.
I remember watching a video a while ago, where a man talks about his interaction with young boys, who were asked how they'd feel if their coach said they play like girls. Their response: "It would kill me".
I guess it was these notions that the man in my college wearing a sari was daring us to question.
*********
PS: The reason 'male traits' and 'female traits' and similar terms are put in quotations is to reflect that these are terms that are traditionally used to signify the difference between the male and the female, and not because I subscribe to that difference.
On the bright side, here are some related posts on the topic:
On judgment [Lunarbaboom comic]
On solidarity [News article]
On patriarchy and stereotypes [self promo ]
On choice [self promo 2 - vatodo...writer's gotta write]
He was wearing a sari.
I stared at him for a few moments, trying to sort through my own reaction. The first, visceral reaction to this sight was: strange. Not in an indifferent, haan okay kind of way, but in a way where I could feel something twisting inside me - an uncomfortable kind of strange. When that reaction passed, the second one was that of respect and admiration at the man's willingness to do something that he was clearly going to face some backlash for.
But as I walked away, I couldn't help going back to that first reaction, questioning over and over again why I felt okay at the sight of the woman dressed in 'male clothing', whereas I couldn't extend that same nonchalance at the sight of the man dressed in 'female clothing'. After all, hadn't people often said that our patriarchal system made lives far more difficult and oppressive for women than for men? Then why was it that in this case, a woman was able to break her stereotypical boundaries far more easily than a man?
And then I began seeing glimpses of this difference all around me. Girls could wear blue without anyone creating a fuss, but boys wearing pink were made fun of. In fact, girls could now wear jeans, pants, t-shirts and shirts, but boys still couldn't wear skirts, dresses or heels. Girls were encouraged to play sports, and not see it as a male-only field; but few boys were encouraged to take up cooking or embroidery. Women in engineering classes were seen as a pleasant surprise, but men in arts classes were frowned upon. Women were joining the workforce in larger numbers, and this was seen as a positive step towards their empowerment; but men choosing to stay at home and take care of the children was looked down upon. Women were lauded for being tougher; men were shamed for being emotional.
Clearly, there was a trend here. As a 'progressive' society, we had become largely okay with women doing things that had been traditionally associated with men, but the reverse wasn't true. We were okay with women blurring the boundaries that differentiated males and females, encouraging even, but felt instantly unnerved and unsettled when men tried to do the same.
But why? Why were the two so different? Why were our reactions to them so different? How was a female adopting 'male traits' different from a man adopting 'female traits'?
Till date, whenever I had imagined society's perception of the male and female, I had assumed the two were on different sides, with a line going between them to show the boundaries. Based on this model, challenging social norms just meant doing what the other has traditionally done.
 |
| Old perception |
But then I began to realize, that perhaps this really isn't the right model. Sure, there's a line dividing the male and female, but the two aren't just on different sides: they're also on different levels. The male is positioned higher than the female.
 |
| New Perspective |
Now, honestly, this wasn't a startling realization. Even as a 4-year-old, I had decided that being like a boy was definitely cooler than being like a girl. As a result, I had rejected skirts for shorts, dolls for cars, and playing house for playing cricket (despite having minimal love for the sport).
But almost 20 years later, I came back to analyze my own actions, realizing that the fact that I aspired to be more like the boys around me showed that I automatically viewed them to be at a higher position than myself and other girls. Evidently, I wasn't the only one who had this perception. Everyone believed it, though they never said it. Men were better than women. The characteristics of men were far superior than the characteristics of women. Everything associated with the masculine was something to aspire towards, whereas everything associated with the feminine was to be looked down at. Not only did this pose many problems for women (which was the common narrative), but it also posed challenges for men who connected with those so-called-feminine traits.
The bottom line really comes down to this - women can aspire to be more like men, but men should not aspire towards characteristics associated with women. That's it.
What a mess.
And unfortunately, this idea is so deeply ingrained within us, it prevents us from truly accepting people around us for the way they are. The judgement. It's all around us. It's also within us. He's a fashion designer? Must be gay, obviously. No straight man enjoys shopping or talking about clothes. That man is wearing heels! What is this world coming to?! These young people have no respect for society. Everything has limits, okay, and you need to stay by those limits. Why do you have to question and challenge everything? Why can't you just let some things be the way they are?! No man ever had a problem with wearing pants - where do you come off trying to stir all this trouble about letting them wear skirts? Listen, it's for their own good. Do you realize how much fun other kids will make of him if he goes out like this?! It's better for him if you teach him some social rules from now itself. He stays at home and looks after the kids while the wife works? Clearly, we know who's wearing the pants in that house!
But why is this a problem? For two primary reasons.
One, it limits choice. We might call ourselves liberal and progressive and open-minded, but every time we squirm and judge a man for wanting to wear pink, we're limiting his choices.
Two, it reinforces that idea that traditional feminine characteristics are inferior, and not something to aspire towards. Taking care of children is not aspirational. Cooking and cleaning and stitching are not aspirational. Displaying your emotions is not aspirational. Pink is not aspirational. Being like a girl is not aspirational.
I remember watching a video a while ago, where a man talks about his interaction with young boys, who were asked how they'd feel if their coach said they play like girls. Their response: "It would kill me".
I guess it was these notions that the man in my college wearing a sari was daring us to question.
*********
PS: The reason 'male traits' and 'female traits' and similar terms are put in quotations is to reflect that these are terms that are traditionally used to signify the difference between the male and the female, and not because I subscribe to that difference.
On the bright side, here are some related posts on the topic:
On judgment [Lunarbaboom comic]
On solidarity [News article]
On patriarchy and stereotypes [self promo ]
On choice [self promo 2 - vatodo...writer's gotta write]
No comments:
Post a Comment