Although the differences between the two paintings we viewed in class this week were striking, my first thought upon viewing the images was that their similarities had a much greater impact on me. Sure, the work of both artists can be used to show how what is perceived as masculine by our society has changed over the centuries, but our culture's obsession with assigning a gender to everything has remained steadfast. Instead of embracing androgynous fashion and its recent rise in popularity throughout our country, many seek to stigmatize it and continue to force clothing, among other things that gender clearly plays no role in, to be distinctly masculine or feminine. In today's consumer culture, it feels as though we are unable to avoid the overwhelmingly pink packaging used to distinguish "women's products" from those targeted at men which serve exactly the same function. Although we're admittedly becoming much more encouraging of women in traditionally male fields like science and engineering and men that choose to be stay-at-home fathers or other traditionally female jobs such as nurses and elementary school teachers, this shift makes the gender-stereotyped messages that society is sending today's youth all the more interesting. With the toys that are marketed to kids today, girls are still taught to be concerned with their appearances and to accept the "damsel in distress" role popularized by fairy tales, while boys are forced to feel like it's not okay for them to be vulnerable. I'm not saying that such toys should be erased from the shelves of stores, but I think we definitely need to consider what is being said when these products are marketed to a specific audience. After making so much progress, why do we feel the need to contradict our efforts?
Paintings I referenced:
 |
| Chancellor Seguier at the Entry of Louis XIV into Paris in 1660 |
 |
| The Chancellor Seguier on Horseback |
Although the differences between the two paintings we viewed in class this week were striking, my first thought upon viewing the images was that their similarities had a much greater impact on me. Sure, the work of both artists can be used to show how what is perceived as masculine by our society has changed over the centuries, but our culture's obsession with assigning a gender to everything has remained steadfast. Instead of embracing androgynous fashion and its recent rise in popularity throughout our country, many seek to stigmatize it and continue to force clothing, among other things that gender clearly plays no role in, to be distinctly masculine or feminine. In today's consumer culture, it feels as though we are unable to avoid the overwhelmingly pink packaging used to distinguish "women's products" from those targeted at men which serve exactly the same function. Although we're admittedly becoming much more encouraging of women in traditionally male fields like science and engineering and men that choose to be stay-at-home fathers or other traditionally female jobs such as nurses and elementary school teachers, this shift makes the gender-stereotyped messages that society is sending today's youth all the more interesting. With the toys that are marketed to kids today, girls are still taught to be concerned with their appearances and to accept the "damsel in distress" role popularized by fairy tales, while boys are forced to feel like it's not okay for them to be vulnerable. I'm not saying that such toys should be erased from the shelves of stores, but I think we definitely need to consider what is being said when these products are marketed to a specific audience. After making so much progress, why do we feel the need to contradict our efforts? 
Hi Katie! I really liked your post. I discussed a similar idea in my blog, the fact that society still thinks it's a good idea to assign genders to inanimate objects. It's really dumb that companies design separate products (that are always pink) to women. Thanks for your insight!
ReplyDeleteKatie, I loved this post! I agree with your ideas; society continues to put a label on men and women and assign them to how they should be classified. For example, it's annoying that baby girls are always given the pink balloons, and baby boys the blue ones. I hope one day this can change, of course, with regards to all objects!
ReplyDeleteHi Katie! I loved the way you pointed out the gender divide that many commercial companies take part in and the gender stereotypes that boys and girls have to live with. Society has its way of disapproving and being afraid of changes, which you really pointed out well in your blog post. I also found your title and picture of sprinkles very interesting because they represent the chains that society puts on young boys and girls. Imagine the ignorance needed in society that we even put genders on food products! I hope that one day society will open its eyes and be willing to accept change.
ReplyDeleteYour blog brings up very interesting points! I completely agree that the amount of gender marketing in today's world is ridiculous, and I love how you contrasted this point to the androgyny prevalent around the globe. By bringing up the old fairy tales that force gender roles down kid's throats, you are helping to further emphasize your point of how gender marketing is outdated.
ReplyDeleteHey Katie! I love how your post delves into the idea society has of gender, such as the colors. It's interesting how liking the color blue as a little girl assigns you with the lable of "tomboy" even if you like blue but you also like dresses. It seems like the idea of "gender" is very heavily associated with corporations; I remember seeing a post on social media about Bic coming out with a new line of pens that are 2x more expensive and the reason for that is because they are specially "for women." Anyway, I love how you compared over-masculinity to gender roles in society :)
ReplyDelete