Repurpose
Doctor: smart, healthy, confident, male
Teacher: smart, caring, nice, female
Lawyer: smart, quick-witted, male
Nurse: smart, compassionate, caring, female
Professions are generally dominated by one gender more so than the other. As of January 2016, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 66% of physicians in the United States are men and only 33% are women. Why is this? There is nothing in the job description that states that you must be male to be a doctor. And yet, there is an inconsistency in gender distribution.
When investigating this discrepancy, I looked to feminism and society. It begs to ask the question of whether or not culturally, we still hold traditional gender roles and the professions that align with them, to higher regards than we may be consciously realizing.
In order to begin to combat this (maybe?) subconscious mentality, in the latter part of the twentieth century, Angela Carter, a progressive author, repurposed traditional fairy tales and stories by replacing unrealistic, stock personas of princesses and female characters, with nonconformist ones. She was an author who utilized unorthodox and grotesque portrayals of female characters to represent independence and uninhibited feminine sexuality.
Specifically in Carter’s adaptation of “Peter and the Wolf” the main girl was presented as a wolf. The wolf-girl was described having her
Lips open as she howled so that she offered him, without her own intention or volition, a view of a set of Chinese boxes of whorled flesh that seemed to open up on another into herself, drawing him into an inner, secret place in which destination perpetually receded before him, his first, devastating, vertiginous imitation of infinity (Carter 63).
Carter is using this symbol to demonstrate how society both sexualizes women without the individuals doing, while simultaneously critiquing her for such public displays of sexuality and freedom. By treating the wolf-girl as a symbol rather than a human, carter was able to completely disregard societal expectations and restrictions, and focus completely on one aspect of the character, sexuality.
Carter primarily wrote during the 1980’s, as feminism was beginning to appear more similarly to what it looks like today. She fought against the idealistic depiction of women by exaggerating a symbol of femininity. The animalistic symbolism of the wolf really focuses on sexual expression that women desired, in contrast to culturally induced image of sexuality.
As culture has made great strides for gender equality, women now embody more mundane and civilized symbols. No longer are women likened to wolves, but to other women. As influential women strive to be recognized for their influence in their perspective fields, the quetion of "gender-blindness" comes into play. This quesiton can be traced back to the concept of colorblindness in post-racial America. Here, rather than discussing whether or not to acknowledge the differences between races, we replace the variable of race, with gender.
As much as we, the United States, would like to believe that we will be colorblind, the fact of the matter isthat we are not. And it isn't feasible to be so. The same holds true for gender. It is a component that is important to consider when looking at public figures. The Gender variable can be looked at through stereotypes, ways in which women struggle to be seen as something other than women, and the complexity of reincorporating gender into identity.
When looking at Angela Carter's writing, her characterization of the wolf-girl falls into the category of addressing the completely negative stereotypes of women. instead of acknowledging anything positive or neutral about the gender, the gender divide negativley emphasizes specific traits rather than the woman as a whole.
Politician
The stereotypical politician is a white, middle-aged, wealthy man. But why, even after so much progress in diversifying the American government, does this standard still hold as the symbol of Politician?
Fig. 1. First images when “Politician” is googled.
Hilary Clinton has been a front-runner in the efforts to change this convention. In fact, her name is generally the first person people associate with the term “female politician”. Hilary Clinton is one of the most recognizable politicians in both the United States and the world. She has played prominent roles in government for many years (I don’t know exactly how long). She was an influential First Lady of Arkansas and the United States of America, a Senator from New York from 2001 through 2009, and the Secretary of State under President Obama. Currently she is in the running to be the 45th President of the United States.
She has been a positive role model for girls who aspire to be successful in a field dominated by men. And yet, after such an impressive list of accomplishments, she is continuously criticized for issues extending beyond the political realm. Hilary Clinton is often faced with negative criticism regarding her appearance. She doesn’t wear enough makeup. How could she possibly
“A story in the April issue of Elle magazine quoted Clinton's aides bemoaning her recent habit of pulling her hair back in a casual ponytail with a scrunchie, a fabric-covered hair elastic.”
"Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis? And that woman, by the way, is not going to want to look like she's getting older, because it will impact poll numbers. It will impact perceptions." –Rush Limbaugh
“[Hilary Clinton] doesn't have to prove she's a man. She has to prove she's a woman ... She has to prove she has normal human warmth, a normal amount of give, of good nature, that she is not, at bottom, grimly combative and rather dark.” –Peggy Noonan
think to wear glasses? To think she would ever consider putting her hair in a ponytail? Preposterous! What is even worse is how she is continuously lambasted for looking old. I hate to break it to people, but that’s what happens when time passes… you get and look older. This is what results when a job is stressful; it causes grey hairs to appear and wrinkles to develop. Sure people comment about men aging, but they, correctly, attribute it to the office position he holds. But when it is a woman who longer looks 35 years old? The assumption is that she must not take care of herself and her support will decrease.
Fig. 2. Comparison of President Obama 2009-2016
Throughout the process of writing this piece, I interviewed numerous people regarding this topic of flaws in societal symbolism. During the process, I did a word association, asking for the first person that came to mind when given the word “politician”. The response to this question was almost completely men. “President Obama”. “Joe Biden”. “Bernie Sanders”. Even though Hilary is the one running for president, her husband, Bill, was named more often than she was.
These responses can be attributed to the legacy of institutional sexism. It “refers to the manipulation or toleration of institutional policies that restrict the opportunities for one sex as compared with the other.” Although professions are no longer restricted by gender, which was not the case until late. Women have had the opportunity to seriously play a role in government only somewhat recently, in comparison to men, dating back centuries to the establishment of the United States.
As much as Hilary Clinton embodies the symbol of “Politician”, she is also a mom, a grandma, and a strong woman. These positive identities are lost when the opposing political party claims she is intimidating, masculine, a liar, and a bad person. But at her most basic self, she is a human and a woman. Our society recognizes her as the “Female Politician”. We are still in the process of losing the gender differentiation. Time will tell if we will be able to lose the female title, creating an equal field for both men and women.
Athlete
As an athlete myself, I am constantly told that women’s sports are inferior, female college sports are pointless, and that female athletes simply aren’t as good at their prospective sports as their male counterparts.
Fig. 3. First images when "Professional Athlete" is googled.
Serena Williams puts all of these claims to shame. At lest she should, based on her countless achievements. Williams is consistently ranked as one of the world’s most dominant athletes of all time, on lists including both men and women. She has dominated the game of tennis with a style unmatched on the women’s tour.
She is strong and confident, two characteristics pivotal to her continuous success. In addition to her triumphs on court, she has her own fashion line, as well as numerous endorsements. And yet, Williams is consistently labeled intimidating, scary, and masculine. It’s as if people forget about her real qualities, and only pay attention to these negative labels.
Fig. 4. Serena Williams at Wimbledon
Yes, she is physically strong, some may go as far as imposing, but she has put in a lifetime of training and dedication to be in prime, competition-ready shape. Sure, she may not have the delicate and idealized feminine physique of, say Eugenie Bouchard or Maria Sharapova, but she wouldn’t be the same athlete without it. She has muscle. That makes her strong and powerful. It sure as hell doesn’t make her a man.
Fig. 5. Maria Sharapova, Serena Williams, Eugenie Bouchard
Being a woman doesn’t make her any less of an athlete either. “But she would lose to any of the top men.” Yeah, and? Regardless of skill and mental toughness, strength and size makes a huge impact in athletics, especially tennis. Men are bigger, stronger, and faster. Just because women are at a physical disadvantage, it does not make them inferior athletes when competing among equals.
Just as was the case with the word “politician,” when people heard “athlete,” the answers were nearly unanimously male. And yet, women have been competing in the Olympics since 1900. For more than a century we have been competing next to men but are not thought of as equals. Although this appears as a significant period of time, in comparison to the Olympic games having been played since 776BCE, men have been established athletes for a much more substantial amount of history.
Entertainer
Unlike in politics and athletics, entertainers are acknowledged as both men and women. The person who epitomizes pop culture and modern entertainment is a woman. She is symbolized as an image of perfection. Without a doubt, Beyoncé is, well, Queen. She is talented, famous, and beyond talented. But this description could easily be applied to Hilary Clinton or Serena Williams. Yet why does society only place Beyoncé on a pedestal and not the others?
I tried to find negative criticisms of Beyoncé but only discovered an endless list of articles praising her “flawless”-ness and claiming that it is socially unacceptable to dislike or criticize her. But why?
Fig. 6. Beyonce
What places Beyoncé above the level of criticism that almost any other powerful woman, or man for that matter, in the public eyes seems to face? It all appears to come down to the fact that she embodies the ideal symbol of the woman other women want to be, and the one men want to be with. She has an insanely successful career that continues to grow and her confidence is unrivaled. She is also beautiful and happily married with a child. She is the symbol of the ideal woman from both men’s and women’s perspectives.
After the Super Bowl, Beyoncé earned some criticism as a result of her halftime performance with Coldplay. Some praised her for speaking out for black lives, and others criticized her for making a political statement during a non-political event. Super Bowl Performance
Fig. 7. Beyoncé at the Super Bowl
Both Beyoncé and Kendrick Lamar released music addressing the culture of Black America, yet Beyoncé was more widely criticized. Although gender is not the only reason for this, it did play a role. Beyoncé and her backup dancers performed clad in leotards and tights, bringing an apparent sexualized aspect to the show. People claimed that this detracted from the impact of the intended image. Additionally, in general, it appears that in the entertainment business, female artists tend to make fewer political statements than male artists. Historically, Beyoncé has been a relatively non-confrontational artist, and made a very public statement on a very public stage. In contrast, Kendrick Lamar is a less widely known figure, who has consistently made political statements through his music, and performed on a stage known for controversy. *** because of these last few reasons… I’m not sure of how strong of a statement this last argument is.
Observations
Each of these women, Hilary Clinton, Serena Williams, and Beyoncé, represent a recognizable symbol in society today. What then, is the difference between them and the wolf-girl in “Peter and the Wolf” though? Today our culture and the status of feminism has evolved far enough to the point that real women can effectively represent women, and even men (though not as publically acknowledged). We no longer need to be portrayed as an animal or in a form that only highlights a single attribute for others to look up to or demonstrate as desirable traits.
Women would have been able to look to the wolf in Angela Carter’s piece for encouragement to not hide one’s sexuality and desires. Today, people can look to Beyonce to fulfill the same purpose. Girls would, and still do look up to the symbol of the princess for guidance for how to behave, yet this behavior was initially dictated by traditional and social conventions and restrictions, and incentives to please or win a man.
In contrast, Clinton, Williams, and Beyoncé represent so much more than a single dominant mannerism. They have persisted through failure in the cutthroat arenas of elections, competitions, and public opinions. They each receive public criticism for many aspects of their being, especially appearances. But these women are more than just what the public sees. They are more than a symbol. And as long as society continues to view these women as objects, able to only be associated with single characteristics, forgetful of the fact that they are people too, we still have much room to improve with regards to objectifying women, and people as a whole.
With all of this being said, the fact that these people are women must not be disregarded. Gender is an integral part of their identities, but makes them no more or less important than if they were men. When discussing their roles, the public should note that yes, they are women, however that should be the extent to which it matters. Beyond the observation, it should not impact one’s perspective of how strong or important or relevant the person is in their field and society.
Works Sited
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/physicians-by-gender/#map
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/09/entertainment/beyonce-boycott-super-bowl-feat/
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/slay-anything-is-beyonce-beyond-criticism-20160209
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-05-09/hillary-rodham-clinton/54860282/1
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/02/05/a-comprehensive-guide-to-sexist-attacks-on-hill/199700
