Ordinary sexism: does gender equality exist in Russia? Gender and you: how society constructs gender differences
gender equality (egalitarian)- The feminist interpretation of equality assumes that men and women should have equal shares in social power, equal access to public resources. gender equality is not the identity of the sexes, the identity of their signs, characteristics. To speak of identity does not allow, at least, a different role in reproduction.
Term egalitarianism(in this case a synonym for the term gender equality) has undergone at least four stages of transformation. The idea of absolute equality between people as a model of a socially just society was primary. Historical development has shown that such a concept is utopian. And if there were "societies of equals", then this equality was achieved with a general decrease in the social status of its members within the framework of an arbitrary distribution system at the cost of losing individuality, the so-called "equality in lack of freedom", equality at a low level of human development, equality in meeting the minimum needs when suppressing the desire to expand the range of needs and destroying bright personalities in society. Ideas like " equalization"Women and men also have sad examples of implementation. The involvement of women in heavy types of labor, the "double burden" of the burden on women, the appearance of "straw" orphans - abandoned children (when in the young and middle-aged Soviet Republic children were handed over to a nursery from the first months of their lives ) And the most remarkable thing is the massive attempt by women to break their female identity by accepting male behavior and male rules of the game for equality with men. And this despite the fact that equality in pay for men and women has not yet come. Equality, therefore, was interpreted as an adjustment to the male type of character, type of profession, type of lifestyle, which led to ridiculous results due to the existing difference between men and women.
The second step in understanding the term equality there was an awareness of the need for equal rights for all citizens of a democratic society. The implementation of this undoubtedly progressive principle of social development has shown its inconsistency and weakness in terms of exercising the rights of individual marginal(cm. Marginality) groups (women, national minorities, etc.).
Hence the emergence of the third stage of the interpretation of egalitarianism in social development. The equality of the rights of citizens was now commensurate with the equality of opportunities for the exercise of these rights. Appear concepts positive discrimination and equal start. Where there is (gender) discrimination in society, equal rights do not provide equal opportunities for the discriminated group (women). The system of privileges for such a group makes it possible to "equalize the chances", to provide an equal start to discriminated and non-discriminated groups. The creation and implementation of such a system is called positive discrimination.
In the development of the concept equality feminists have made significant contributions at every stage in the development of the term. However, the feeling of "understatement" in the concept of equality in terms of building a society free from gender discrimination is also present in the latest interpretation of egalitarianism. We continue to operate within the framework of a "male" society, in which women are adjusted to the standard (norm) of male character traits, areas of activity, and professions. "Male" norms are present both in the patterns of leadership and management, and in the patterns of most of the things and objects around us, designed for the average male person.
The fourth stage in the development of the concept egalitarianism should be recognized equality of self-worth, self-perceptions, self-identification of men and women along with observance of equality of rights of men and women. The self-worth of women (an abnormal group from the point of view of a patriarchal society) must be recognized by society. This will remove the problem of the hierarchy of differences between men and women. Valuable and "male" and "female" character traits, areas of activity. Everyone is valuable: mothers, wives, fathers, husbands, workers and workers, nurses and doctors, etc. The value of a person belonging to a certain social group must be recognized not only in declared slogans, but also be evaluated by a real social measure - payment for this or that work of individuals of this or that quality. For example, the problem occupational segregation based on sex should be solved not by (or not only by) the introduction of women into previously "unexplored" professions, but also through an adequate, equivalent recognition of "female" professions and "female" areas of activity. With this approach, there is no need for a system of preferential treatment for certain social groups, for concern for equality of opportunity.
This is a difficult path for the development of society, but the primitivization of social relations has so far brought only disappointment to humanity. Of course, "the laws created by people must ... be preceded by the possibility of fair relations" (Montesquieu). Today, questions remain open: "What are the criteria for the possibility of implementing egalitarianism in the sense of equal intrinsic value of women and men? What stage of the development of society corresponds to the establishment of gender intrinsic value - its economic prosperity or social maturity? What type of social development - democratic or hierarchical structures? Will this process be accelerated by the presence critical, force majeure factors - ecological, political, national crises, wars?
One thing is clear: the understanding of egalitarianism as an inherent value of a person with its "male" or "female" character traits, its inherent areas of activity is a step forward in building an egalitarian society on a new round of development.
In conclusion - a diagram of the stages in the development of understanding the essence of egalitarianism:
equality > equality of rights > equality of rights and equality of opportunities > equality of rights and equality of intrinsic value, self-identification.
sex equality (English)
Literature:
Kalabikhina IE Social gender: economic and demographic behavior. Moscow, 1981.
Starikov E. Society-barracks: from the pharaohs to the present day. Novosibirsk, 1996.
gender-based analysis. Canada, 1996:
Tuttle L. Encyclopedia of feminism. New York, Oxford, 1986.
I. E. Kalabikhina
[Global Gender Gap Report 2014, which explores the disparities between men and women in health, education, economics and politics. Apparat studied the report and selected the most interesting facts.
1. There is no country in the world where women earn as much as men.
Although women have gained many rights over the past century in many countries, gender inequality remains a problem even in the most developed of them. There is not a single state on the planet where women and men in similar positions receive the same salary. “Women make up about half of the world's population and deserve to have the same access to health care, education, earnings, influence and political rights as men,” write the authors of the World Economic Forum report.
2. Closest to gender equality are the Nordic countries
The first place among the countries that are most successful in fighting inequality is occupied by Iceland. The top five also includes other developed countries of Northern Europe: Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. There, the gap between different sexes has been overcome by 80% - perhaps this is due to the developed innovative economy and the high standard of living in these countries.
3. Nicaragua and Rwanda are better at tackling inequality than many developed countries
Sixth place in the ranking unexpectedly takes Nicaragua. A small and poor country in Central America has overtaken the US, UK and other countries of the developed world because it has a lot of women who are pursuing higher education, working professionally and participating in government. Right after Nicaragua comes Rwanda - she received a high rating, since there are more women than men in the local parliament.
4. Russia is far from defeating gender inequality, mainly because of politics
Russia ranks 75th in the ranking. This is largely due to indicators reflecting the involvement of women in the political life of the country. Analysts estimate that only 16% of Russian parliamentarians and 7% of government officials are women. In addition, the income gap between men and women contributed to the low ranking.
5. The US also lacks female politicians.
Women have more advantages in America than in many other countries: the US has achieved gender equality in education and almost equal access to health care. However, one of the most powerful countries in the world is only 20th in the World Economic Forum rankings. The reason that is dragging America down is the lack of female politicians. The situation in the USA is better than in Russia (18% of parliamentarians and 32% of officials are women), but there is no talk of equality yet.
6. Chad, Pakistan and Yemen are the countries with the highest levels of discrimination
One of the last places in the ranking is Chad, where few women have the opportunity to get higher education and almost all managers, lawyers and officials are men. Pakistan came in penultimate due to large disparities between men and women in the economic sphere, while Yemen ranked last due to the gap in earnings, as well as disparities in education and politics.
7. The situation in the world has improved over the past nine years, and changes are happening in the most unexpected regions.
The World Economic Forum began publishing statistics in 2006 - since then, the report's compilers have regularly polled CEOs from around the world about the wages of their subordinates and measured other indicators that reflect the position of women in society. Change is happening very slowly: in nine years, the position of women in the whole planet has improved by only 4%. However, research shows that most countries in the world are moving in the right direction. Positive dynamics is noticeable in 105 of the 142 countries included in the report. At the same time, the situation is improving not only in developed countries.
8. It will take 81 years to completely eliminate gender inequality
If the fight against inequality continues at the same pace as in the last eight years, then, according to the World Economic Forum, humanity will be able to defeat discrimination against women only by the end of the 21st century.
Interactive map showing the position of women in the world
Map not working on some mobile devices
a characteristic of the social structure, according to which various social groups (in this case, men and women) have stable differences and unequal opportunities in society resulting from them. Gender inequality was recognized by researchers in the social sciences and humanities due to the emergence of the concept of gender in 1980 as the basis of a feminist concept (Joan Scott). The conceptualization of gender has shed light on the process of social construction of masculinity and femininity as oppositional categories with unequal social value.
Since the active suppression of similarities and the construction of differences requires social power, the problem of dominance is central to gender theory. Gender, together with race and class, is a hierarchical structure for both empowerment and oppression and an effective structure of identity and solidarity (Ferree). Differences in the constructs "male - female" characterize the views of researchers who construct the social in a person through the biological (see, for example, the theory of functionalism or the concept of V. A. Geodakyan). Traditional psychoanalysis recognizes that male and female models are diametrically opposed in their qualities (typical male behavior is characterized by activity, aggressiveness, determination, the desire for competition and achievement, the ability to creative activity, rationality; for female - passivity, indecision, dependent behavior, conformity , lack of logical thinking and striving for achievement, as well as greater emotionality and social balance). Keeping the basic psychoanalytic paradigms unchanged, K. Horney draws attention to the fact that the girl is growing up, realizing that a man has a “great price” for society both in human and spiritual terms, and thus, the cause of the masculinity complex in women should be sought in supra-individual, cultural factors.
Based on the Tajfel-Turner theory of social identity, K. Guinci considers men and women as social groups with different social status. High-status groups are most often evaluated in terms of competence and economic success, while low-status groups are evaluated in terms of kindness, kindness, humanity, etc. According to the author, all the positive features of the female stereotype (warmth, emotional support, compliance) are typical compensation for the lack of achievements in a "power position". As members of a low-status group, compared to men, women have a less developed sense of identification with their group, they tend to overestimate male achievements and dignity and underestimate their own, adopting the point of view of a higher-status group - men (Repina). Confirmation of these provisions can be seen in the data of many studies, for example, P. Goldberg found a certain amount of women's prejudice against themselves in the field of scientific activity; college students rate articles signed by men more highly than women (Ageev).
Text: Anastasia Travkina
Illustrations: Dasha Chertanova
The inequality of women and men is often tried to be explained by biology: different rights and opportunities are allegedly associated with differences in the body. There is a lot of talk about "male" and "female" brains in particular - and the prefix "neuro-" has become a new round in the debate about innate differences. It would seem that modern research methods should give an unambiguous answer to the question of whether men and women really think differently, learn differently, solve problems and choose what is important for them in life. Let's see if this is true and how neuroscience data is used to fuel stereotypes.
How it all started
Today, attempts by American slave owners or Nazi scientists to prove the "inferiority" of a whole group of people with the help of measurements seem wild to us - but some still consider it logical to look for biological arguments in order to show how women are worse than men. The notion that women's thinking is less developed than men's has been the "background" of research for many years.
Scientists who explored the brain in the 19th century could not "look" inside - they had to stop at the outer dimensions. They weighed the brain, measured the ratio of the height and width of the skull. The very first discovery of the Victorian era - the brain of women is smaller than the brain of men - began to be used as evidence of the "inferiority" of women; then they began to talk about the small size of the face and the ratio of the height and width of the skull. None of the assumptions later came true: it turned out that intelligence depends on the size of neither the brain nor the skull.
Two hundred years ago, many believed that women were not capable of science, were not meant for politics and lived by feelings, their main talents were gentleness, meekness, submission and motherhood, while men strive for discoveries, power and control. As philosopher Neil Levy puts it, “On average, female intelligence is best at tasks aimed at creating comfort for other people.”
Education was considered dangerous for women's health. Edward Clark, a professor at Harvard Medical School, argued that due to mental activity in women, the ovaries can atrophy; supposedly it leads to masculinization, sterility, insanity and even death. By the way, a woman, physician Mary Jacobi, refuted Clark's idea.
testosterone and embryos
In 2005, at a conference on promoting sociocultural and gender diversity in science and engineering, Harvard University President Lawrence Summers suggested that women are naturally less capable of science. Needless to say, that the fact that women scientists were outraged by this statement was tried to be explained by their "sensitivity"?
To justify such a statement, the media, excited by the scandalous speech, recalled the theory of prenatal testosterone. According to her, the release of testosterone in the male embryo at the eighth week of development changes the structure of his brain: it increases the centers responsible for aggression and sexual behavior, and reduces those responsible for communication and emotions. This campaign of androgens on the fetus allegedly creates a “real” man who is adapted for science.
But there are problems with this bold theory. Firstly, the influence of "male" hormones on the brain was studied in rodents, whose brain is very different in complexity from the human brain. In addition, even scientists who look at how testosterone affects fetal rats cannot answer exactly how it changes the behavior of rat pups after birth. Secondly, there is no way to directly measure testosterone in a child's blood. We can guess its level by indirect indicators: by measuring its level in the blood of the mother or in the amniotic fluid, or by comparing the length of the ring and index fingers (it is believed that this is influenced by testosterone in the womb). This means researchers don't yet know for sure how much of their measurements are related to fetal hormones, which can affect the brain.
Of course, this is not to say that hormones do not affect the brain in any way - but so far we do not know exactly how. Moreover, it is impossible to talk about what kind of place people
with or without testosterone should occupy in society
Third, the only way to test how testosterone influences children's behavior, and at the same time exclude the influence of gender stereotypes in the environment, is to conduct studies on infants up to a few days old. By themselves, such tests are very difficult to organize. For example, they conducted such an experiment: boys and girls were allowed to look at the face of the scientist who conducted the experiment, and the typewriter. It turned out that boys looked at the typewriter longer than girls (51% versus 41%), and girls - at the face (49% versus 46%). At the same time, the experiment was not carried out quite correctly: the experimenters knew the sex of the children in advance, they were not convinced that all the babies were in the same fixed position and that there was the same distance from each of them to the object. Nevertheless, the experimenters said that girls are born with an innate interest in faces, and boys in moving objects.
Of course, this is not to say that hormones do not affect the brain in any way - but so far we do not know exactly how. Moreover, it is impossible to talk about what place people with or without testosterone should occupy in society.
"Creative"
and "rational" hemispheres
You have probably heard the myth that only one of its hemispheres is responsible for some abilities of the brain: for example, the right hemisphere is responsible for creativity and intuition, and the left is responsible for logic and consistency. In fact, the asymmetry of the brain concerns only low-level "technical" processes, including the control of the senses (for example, the information from the left visual angle of the eye is processed by the right hemisphere, and so on). It cannot be said that men use the left hemisphere of the brain more for speech (and therefore they can express their thoughts clearly), while women use the right hemisphere (and therefore they talk about feelings). If this were the case, then in men, problems with speech would arise exclusively when the left hemisphere is damaged, and in women - the right hemisphere, but this does not happen. It turned out that the location of the "speech" and "spatial" zones of the hemispheres varies for many reasons, including those not related to gender.
What scientists have indeed found are differences in brain connectivity between men and women. In the brain of men, there are more connections within the hemispheres, and in the brain of women - interhemispheric. True, it has not yet been possible to prove that these features are related to behavior and abilities. It has been observed that the mode of communication in the hemispheres depends on the size of the brain: the larger it is, the more hemispheric connections it has, regardless of the sex of the owner. At the same time, the size of the brain is proportional to the body, so people with a smaller body have a smaller brain and more interhemispheric connections.
It is impossible to conclude from these features that men are better suited for mathematics and spatial tasks, and women for speech tasks and intuition. Interestingly, researchers of mathematically gifted adolescents argue that it is precisely the greater connection between the hemispheres (ironically more common in women) that gives math abilities.
Spatial
and speech abilities
Often those who seek to prove the difference between men and women are guided by what seems obvious to them from life experience: women make fewer discoveries, are less represented in science, listen more to others, and more often mess with children. Something like this in the 18th century proved the failure of the female intellect: women did not show talent in the sciences, which they were simply forbidden to do.
In order to prove these "patterns" today, spatial tests for the rotation of three-dimensional figures are often used: it is believed that men do it better. This view has been well researched by social psychologists. It turned out that if the subjects were told before the test that it would determine their ability in engineering and aircraft construction (or that men are better at it), then women show lower results. If you say that skills in crocheting and other needlework are tested (or say that women pass the tests better), then women do better.
This effect is called "stereotype threat". Both men and women are subject to "intuitive" notions that are not so easy to dismiss, especially if they are expressed by authorities: scientists and opinion leaders. It is interesting that other information can also influence the passing of tests, the manifestation of leadership qualities and ambitions: for example, biographies of women leaders, scientific articles on women's abilities in mathematics and spatial thinking significantly increase the results of girls.
Toys, children and primates
A few years ago, anthropologists' observations of a tribe of wild chimpanzees shocked everyone: scientists discovered that young females coddled with firebrands like with a doll. This study was used as an argument in favor of the fact that the main role of a woman is motherhood. But the human woman is still not exactly a female chimpanzee. To prove (or disprove) the propensity of the cubs of higher primates and humans to stereotypical activities from an early age, it is necessary to conduct large-scale experiments with both.
The results of such experiments on monkeys have been inconsistent. The chimpanzees were offered a "boyish" car and ball, a "girly" doll and saucepan, and a "neutral" picture book and plush dog. Males played with all the toys in the same way, while females spent more time on “girls” toys. True, there is a serious problem here: human things have a different meaning for animals. When the same toys were broken down into other categories - animate and inanimate - the difference between the preferences of females and males disappeared.
Often, research data that does not reveal differences between men and women are ignored - but studies that confirm the difference are published and reprinted by the media and bloggers.
In experiments on children, unambiguous conclusions are also not obtained. Trains, cars and tools are considered "boyish" toys, dishes, a baby bottle or a cradle are considered "girlish" toys. On average, it can be shown that boys spend more time playing with cars, and girls with bottles. Gender-neutral toys such as puzzles, pyramids, stuffed animals, both spend the same amount of time. Other researchers believe that soft toys are not gender neutral, but are designed for girls, and prove that girls spend more time with them.
Just like with monkeys, experiments with children can become a "self-fulfilling prophecy", and after them many questions remain. What exactly attracts kids in toys: color, temperature and texture, sounds, strength, smell? What will a boy be more willing to play with - with a fire truck without wheels or with Barbie on a pink car? What properties of toys are attractive to female and male primates and is it possible, knowing them, to design such toys that would be interesting only to one sex?
So is there a difference
Neuroscience is a group of new sciences at an early stage of development. Our technique is still imperfect, there is still very little information about the brain - and many discoveries about a person are yet to come. There are recommendations for neurostudies, they suggest taking into account not only the gender of the subjects, but also their age, origin, social status, and so on. This requirement takes into account - the ability of the brain to change under the influence of experience throughout life. If we get data on differences in brain function in different people, we need to understand whether they appeared from birth or through experience. Stereotypes are also reinforced by what information reaches a wide audience: often the data of many studies that do not reveal differences between men and women are ignored - but studies confirming the difference between women and men are published and reprinted by the media and bloggers.
There are no areas in the brain that are responsible for talent for mathematics, writing, empathy, or culinary abilities: it is a “mosaic”, involving many areas, which can solve the same problem in different ways. "Intuitive" conclusions can be a stereotype, experiments should be correctly reproduced in different laboratories and give the same result.
Of course, one cannot say that biological differences between the sexes do not exist at all. Research can, for example, help to understand features such as autism, which is more often diagnosed in boys. The difference must be taken into account in the experiments themselves. Even for cellular studies, it is now proposed to use cells taken from both men and women, since sex-determining chromosomes encode up to 5% of our genome and affect the reactions of the cell.
At the same time, “difference” does not mean “opposite” at all, scientists suggest talking about the “gender effect”: humanity is a single species with many variations in the structure of the brain. "Male" and "female" brains are a myth, and the existing differences are no reason to believe that some brains are "better" than others.
Almost every aspect of our lives depends on gender, the idea that men and women are different. Gender, unlike natural gender, is constructed by society and builds our lives along a vector acceptable to boys and girls. This idea tells us what to wear, how to look, how to speak and how to behave.
What is gender?
Anastasia Novokunskaya
Often the inhabitants do not make a distinction between the biological sex and the social one, which is created in the process of upbringing. We are used to living in a binary coordinate system, beyond which it is difficult to go.
Katerina Ivanova
Sociologist, graduate of EU St. Petersburg
I would put it this way: gender is differences based on the idea that we are different in gender. This idea is unchanged. It explains why we should do things this way and not otherwise. Unlike natural sex, social sex is a continuously changing process.
Two points remain fundamental: difference and inequality. As historical progress progresses, fewer and fewer moments are determined by natural sex. And before, for example, it was assumed that a woman could not engage in intellectual activity, because the blood drains from the uterus to the brain, which can interfere with reproductive function.
Gender differences are always justified by references to biological certainty, but what exactly is biologically determined changes in the course of history.
Ksenia Podolskaya
In art, gender is passed through the concept of aesthetics and artistic construction. The artist creates images within the framework of the society and time in which he lives.
For example, in the painting “Metro construction with a drill” by artist Alexander Nikolayevich Samokhvalov, 1937, the metro construction is a strong, athletic woman who is in no way inferior to a man, because in those days a woman acted primarily as a comrade. This attitude was born against the backdrop of a blurring of sexual boundaries. Samokhvalov, as an artist, makes his women strong, muscular, but at the same time they are very sexy - this is how he shows his attitude towards them.
Gender stereotypes and systems of inequality
Katerina Ivanova
Sociologist, graduate of EU St. Petersburg
The stereotype is a very useful psychological function. It simplifies the perception of the world, allowing the brain to save resources. In life, we are faced with a huge number of situations where you need to quickly make decisions and assess the situation. It's good if you have ready-made behaviors. Without them, our brain would have a hard time.
Stereotypes turn into stable patterns. We define something as cool and good, but something is not.
Anastasia Novokunskaya
Student of the phd program of the EU St. Petersburg, administrator of the program "Gender Studies"
Gender stereotypes are well reflected in the theory of the American researcher Cecilia Ridway. In 2011, she wrote a book about American society, Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World. The book says that in America there are many efforts to overcome gender inequality, but in the sphere of home life and work, the results of these efforts are not so tangible.
These systems of inequality are reproduced by so-called cultural beliefs - in other words, stereotypes.
Sometimes we think that gender stereotypes are positive. But beyond their borders, systems of inequality will be built. We attribute to people some patterns of life and behavior "by default". For example, when a woman goes on maternity leave for three years, she loses a significant amount of “social points” in terms of career, personal growth, and much more. A woman becomes dependent on a man, including financially. Even in the long run, a woman's career is more vulnerable than a man's. This inequality is built on the stereotype that a woman, by nature, takes care of children best. But this is not an absolute fact, but only a stereotype.
Even in Scandinavia, where society is explicitly fighting inequality, where parental leave is equally divided between men and women, and where 40% of management positions in the country are held by women - even in such conditions, cultural beliefs are very strong. They have been reproduced for tens of thousands of years, and we want to break them in one or two generations.
What is the difference between men and women
Katerina Ivanova
Sociologist, graduate of EU St. Petersburg
Male and female are many differences. Men and women are not dichotomously different - there are many levels of inequality between them. Theories that capture this multiplicity are now in great demand in sociology.
There is no one pattern of man or woman, but there are many masculinities and many femininities.
Elena Zdravomyslova
The American post-structuralist philosopher Judith Butler says that there is no stable gender, but there is a performative gender that we create in the process of communication with others. With the help of performance (speech forms, for example). In speech practice, inequality is fixed in the form of formulas “a man should”, “a woman should”, “she is incapable”, “he is not predisposed” and so on. So inequality is fixed in the language.
Anastasia Novokunskaya
Student of the phd program of the EU St. Petersburg, administrator of the program "Gender Studies"
We do not have two poles of male and female, but there are many positions with different levels of manifestation of male and female. Moreover, gender inequality intersects with many other forms of inequality - ethnic, age, religious and many others.
Why is it that when a girl puts on a man's shirt, it can be sexy, but if a man puts on something from a girl's wardrobe, it evokes a different feeling?
Katerina Ivanova
Sociologist, graduate of EU St. Petersburg
What does "woman in a man's shirt" mean? Context is important here. When I am told about this image (a woman in a man's shirt), it seems that she put it on in the morning after sex - this image is very sexualized. Things are not important, but the marking "female - male" is important. Even if a woman puts on a man's thing or uses typically men's things, then this eventually becomes sexual in nature. For example, the trousers became narrow - they covered all the most interesting places. From a symbol of the struggle for equality of rights with men, they have become an instrument of objectification.
In our society, a man is taken as a starting point, and a woman is always number two and something secondary. This can be seen when talking about typically "female" and "male". For example, what femininity is is not very clear, but a man is always an understandable and clear image. Men should always be not a woman and defend their status. The man thinks about it all the time. If a man says “I don’t like gays”, then he doesn’t always sincerely dislike gays. He just defends his difference from femininity, because it is believed that "gay" is feminine. This is a discursive line of struggle.
The man, as it were, says "I am a man, not these ones."
Elena Zdravomyslova
Professor at the Faculty of Political Science and Sociology, co-coordinator of the Gender Studies Program
Gender typing is involved in this shirt case. In the public mind there is a simple dichotomous division into men and women. Under the condition of a rigid structure, where there are patterns of "correct" femininity and "correct" masculinity, a man who puts on women's clothes reduces his masculinity. Such a clear social structure absolutely does not allow any freaks to destroy it.
In modern society, women are actively expanding the limits of the norm of "feminine" and "non-feminine". Women master the types of activities that were previously unique to men. There is a massive penetration of women into the men's world, which is expressed in the normalization of men's clothing.
Men's clothing (for the most part) is a "suit" for an urban environment. Therefore, if a woman is included in this environment, then why not put on a men's shirt - very convenient.
Ksenia Podolskaya
Art critic, Russian State Pedagogical University im. Herzen
In society, there are patterns of masculinity, classical femininity. For example, when meeting women, they can turn their cheeks for a kiss, and on the part of a man this will be perceived somewhat wildly.
The behavior of a woman is less limited by norms.
From the point of view of art, everything is simpler here, because the artistic look justifies any action. For example, the Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, who puts on men's clothes, or the French Dadaist Marcel Duchamp, who had the image of Rosa Selyavi, dressed as a woman and created an alter ego for himself. This behavior was his artistic statement. When such actions are passed through an artistic context, it makes many deviations from the norm easier.
Vladislav Yuryevich Mamyshev-Monroe is a man who made his mainly Marilyn Monroe. He captured himself in photographs in various women's outfits. Here the artist is not engaged in perversion, but is passionate about artistic search.
In the examples described above, there is a postmodern moment that deconstructs reality, working with Baudrillard's simulacra: it is understood that everything is not serious, it is all a game in the context of art, which has nothing to do with society.
The artist constructs his position in the image, and we read it. Those things that seem strange or out of place to us in life, in an artistic image look completely harmonious within the framework of artistic experience.
Anastasia Novokunskaya
Student of the phd program of the EU St. Petersburg, administrator of the program "Gender Studies"
Frame theory says that we have a certain order where all interactions are ritualized. We conditionally switch between these frames depending on the context. In this regard, gender is one of the basic frames.
In the shirt case, it seems to us that there are fewer requirements for women than for men. If a woman can put on a dress, trousers or a skirt and remain a woman, then for a man there are fewer such variations in creating an image.
I think that this case is related to the fact that the female body and the female image in our culture is always more objectified than the male. Wearing a man's shirt, the girl does not cease to be a sexual object.
Masculinity puts more restrictions on a man in terms of appearance. But he has more power. The number of requirements for a man increases in proportion to his status, including clothing. There are more men in prestigious professions, they have higher salaries - this is an illustration of the fact that within the same company, women are aesthetically provided with more opportunities, and men have more power, but less aesthetic freedom. Each group at different levels of inequality has its own number of so-called bonus "points".
We cannot live in a society without gender self-determination. However, gender can both guide men and women in their lives, helping them, and drive them into the box, creating negative stereotypes and inequalities. If you are aware of your gender positions and treat this issue critically, you can discover much more freedoms and get rid of restrictive stereotypes. Then you will not repeat the mistakes that the heroes of the new video of VIA “Hurts” made.