To explore the idea of femininity I need to refer to masculinity because they are often used to define each other. Femininity is widely considered to be whatever masculinity is not, and visa versa.
Stereotypically, masculinity is stronger, bigger, more rough, and less emotional. You are masculine if you are the provider and protector. Femininity is weaker, more emotional, submissive, and sexy. You are feminine if you are a good at listening and nurturing.
I have three questions that challenge these stereotypes:
- If real men are solely masculine and real women are solely feminine then why do so many people talk about having a female side and a male side to our bodies and our brains?
- If there is any truth in these stereotypes why do we meet men and women every day who span both labels; who reject some characteristics and encompass others?
- If femininity is female and masculinity is male the two terms must be defined by characteristics unique to their sex; characteristics a man shares with all other men and characteristics a woman shares with all other women.
Why then are men and women all over the globe finding that it is a struggle to fit into their gender box, the label that is meant to represent their biological gender? (Our Search for Identity: Futile Labels).
I propose that the femininity achieved by changing the way you look or behave is a social construct; the most publicised and accepted version of femininity. This kind of femininity is an idea, a label crowded with connotations that may or may not apply to any one individual.
For a long while this observation led me to reject and rail against the existence of innate gender boundaries until someone pointed out that I am, naturally, very feminine even though I have rejected the accepted methods of feminising ones appearance. This led me to reconsider my argument and realise that it is the appearance of constructed femininity that I can’t relate to. (To read more, see Femininity and Me.)
|
Femininity & Body Hair
"Body hair is a sign of sexual maturity for both women and men, but in women femininity is actually associated with a lack of body hair, such that "feminine" does not mean "womanly" when applied to body hair." |
~ M. Tiggermann & S. Kenyon
But why?
As explored above, masculinity and femininity are considered opposites. That means a woman displaying masculine traits is often considered less attractive and less of a woman.
Masculinity is associated with hair, therefore femininity is associated with lack-of-hair, an idea that the majority of women promote in their attempt to appear smooth, feminine and desirable.
…but think about it, if feminine characteristics are female characteristics they must be natural to a woman and require no effort to obtain. How then, can hairy legs be considered unfeminine? Women naturally grow hair!
Hairy femininity is a perfectly valid version of womanliness and if I have to accept some people feel more feminine without hair on their bodies I see no reason why those people shouldn’t accept I feel more of a woman with my hair intact.
The existence of hairy femininity does not make hairless femininity less feminine. Nor does hairless femininity make hairy femininity less feminine or desirable (although we are conditioned to think so). Look at it this way – hairy femininity is the product of our natural, biological makeup and hairless femininity is the result of society and culture. |
Hair has been, and is, socially significant in many cultures. The online encyclopedia Wikipedia says this about the social role of hair -
“Hair has had social and sexual significance in a number of societies, as a sign of masculinity in men, and femininity in women when in the "right" place, and as a sign of effeminacy in men and unfeminine in women when in the "wrong" place. Where the right and wrong places are differs from one culture to another."
This quote demonstrates that what makes hair or hairlessness “feminine” or “unfeminine” in the eyes on an observer often has nothing to do with the nature and truth of what they're seeing, and is instead informed by the context of the culture the observer grew up in, and the social code he or she has learnt from watching and listening to those around him or her.
|
Another quote from the Wikipedia explains that femininity is often understood by what we learn femininity is supposed to look like:
"The notion of what it means to be feminine changes every year, and ranges the spectrum between the ultrafeminine Gibson Girl of the 1910s to the rather mannish flapper of the 1920s. Many women take their cues from film, television, or women's magazines such as Cosmopolitan... These periodicals usually feature a glamorous covergirl whose clothing, makeup and lifestyle represents the current state-of-the-art in femininity."
|
|
|
Femininity in 1910 |
Femininity in 1920 |
Femininity Today |
So perhaps the question is not whether or not you are feminine but whether your appearance is the product of your DNA or a product of society. |
|
| The Sexual Feminine |
|
Representations of The Feminine in the media are usually defined by changeable norms like fashion, grooming and etiquette. It is important to note that the concept of femininity is almost never separated from the concept of sexuality, encouraging men and women alike to view displays of femininity in a purely sexual context.
VEET 2006
A good example of fashion, grooming, and etiquette being associated with femininity, and used to sell a product, is a Veet advertisement that came to my attention in June 2006.
Veet, for those of you who don’t know, is a brand name of cream woman are encouraged to apply to their legs and peel (or scrape) off, taking their leg hair with it. In the June advert the company behind Veet were claiming to have made a new kind that won’t wash off in the shower. Why this is more helpful than the original Veet cream, I am not entirely sure, but it is the connotations in the ad that are of interest.
|
“When you need to be irresistibly smooth…” says the voice over, try our Veet cream because it will give you “caressably smooth” legs. The word need is used to suggest that hairlessness is a requirement where sexually active women are concerned. The company gets away with this statement because it’s now widely accepted to be true. The connotation of the words irresistible and caressable is that hairless legs will make you sexually appealing.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, the last thing you see before the advert ends is a man asleep on a sofa with a tousled woman beside him looking unimpressed. “If only other feelings lasted as long.” says the voice over. In other words, the advert is implying that:
a) women need to be hairless to be sexually attractive,
b) women shouldn’t expect a satisfying sex-life,
c) women should be content that Veet wax can help them attract sexual attention, because without the product they wouldn’t be able to do that.
|
Sexualising Children
Another worrying aspect about representations of femininity is that girls are, at a very young age, learning to interpret these sexualised, constructed bodies and believe that they are what being female is all about. (See, Why The Constructed Body: Role Models)
When I was under the age of nine I was introduced to the idea of lipstick, nail polish and high-heels and that was pretty much the extent of it. These days clothing stores are providing adult fashion for children as well.
For several years now pubescent girls have been bombarded with unexplained social codes about sexuality and desirability through the medium of music videos, fashion, films and glossy magazines. Now these concepts are being introduced to girls at an increasingly younger age but apparently this is okay because its normal now.
|
CASE STUDY - Journal Entry from Madie's LiveJournal Blog 2005
|
|
