"Auphelia” Wrote:Exactly!

If you notice much of the westernised world, activities and clothes that are associated with men are seen in higher regard. Consider trousers. Men and women can wear them with no problems. Consider a dress. A woman can wear it, but a man wearing it is an abomination and unnatural.

Why?

Because women are inferior, and therefore things associated with us are inferior.

I also find it interesting how there is no way for a woman to just be, we're always a type. Meanwhile, men can luxuriate in their anonymity, not having to define themselves in every decision they make. Women can never be ourselves, but rather the sum total of the opinions people have of us based on our choices. Nothing a woman does can be unmarked, because male is the baseline upon which everything is judged. Of course, this all is not to say that men cannot be marked, but rather that they constantly have the option to be unmarked, comfortable in anonymity, someone who can define themselves as them rather than having assumptions made about them.

Mr conveys nothing except that someone is male. Miss or Mrs defines a woman by her marital status, and about the level of conservative values she may harbour. A Ms declines to answer the question (though a Mr declines nothing, as nothing was asked of him), marking a woman as rebellious or liberated, depending on how someone interpreting her preferred title views the world.

A woman can do nothing with her hair without being judged. Even to do nothing marks us as unkempt, untidy. To have short hair we seen as unfeminine and "butch", probably lesbians. To have long hair holds a whole host of other ways to be marked, with the various styles and colours that are expected of us. A man can simply have short hair and be fine, with little attention called to it and thus is unmarked.

A woman with makeup on is defined by that. A bold red lipstick, heavy eyeliner and lots of eye shadow may be seen as garish and overtly sexual (as anything feminine is), conveying a lack of class and intelligence. A hint of blush and a tinted lip gloss is subtle but conveys class, good for a place of business where appearance might be important. Having to makeup at all for a woman is a sign of not caring about her appearance. On the other hand, a man with no makeup is a man unmarked. Men can wear makeup, and therefore be marked, but he has the choice not to be. He is able to choose.

I've often been called "_____ for a woman", typically belligerent, loud, or fun. On the other hand, I have never heard the same said about men. Men are given more freedom to express themselves in their behaviours, and thus have more ability to express their personalities while remaining unmarked. They are not "that" kind of man; they are simply who they are. A problem of this is also that women are often minorities in fields of power. When that happens, we become representatives of our gender as a whole, which does not serve to make us an unmarked hegemony, but rather make every woman to be who you now are. If you fail, you fail for every woman in the eyes of those around you. If you succeed, you succeed for yourself. This also puts more pressure on women to perform, which leads to more markers, like "driven" and "career oriented", which can be seen as "too aggressive", something relatively unmarked when applied to a man.

What is interesting is that this conveys itself into even places where one would think these physical traits and external features wouldn't matter, like the internet. The very language we use, aside from marking marital status, even reinforces the idea of a woman being lesser or extra to the baseline that is manhood. Markers like ess and ette make a word feminine, and therefore lesser. An actor is someone serious about their role and dedicated to their craft. An actress is a ditsy starlet who obsesses over her looks. Serious professions, like doctors or lawyers, do not use these markers to denote women, because the professions are serious, and therefore have no place for the lesser denotation of womanhood. A doctorette or a lawyeress has no place safeguarding your health or ensuring the law is maintained.

When we make women the other and mark the other as inferior, while men can choose to remain unmarked, we do no favours to either gender. Why is masculinity fine, but femininity something to be afraid of? Why are serious, more masculine (though not too masculine) women considered serious, while a bright, cheery woman in a dress considered less so? It baffles me, and is something society as a whole should consider every time they make assumptions based on external factors. What is driving this train of thought? Why do I consider this person this way? Should I penalise someone because of how they appear to me, or realise my own internal biases and experiences have shaped what I consider good or appropriate?

Asking these questions won't solve the problem, but it might just help each of us make things a little bit better.