empowerment – Pike & Hurricane

Pink, blue and gender stereotyping

Nina Kolarzik — Tue, 24 Mar 2020 15:35:37 +0000

Their favourite colour is pink. They love to wear dresses, they like dancing ballet and cooking. They like flowers more than cars and they enjoy taking care of younger children. Typical girls. We heard these clichés before.

What it means to be a woman and what gender roles are associated with is changing over time. Every generation defines femininity and masculinity. This shows for example in the dressing of children. How did these gender stereotypes become dominant and why is this a problem?

Different times, different colours

Already centuries ago in Europe, colour preferences did exist- but differently than we know it today. Red was seen as a signal colour for masculinity and power and since pink was the “small red”, it was used for young boys. Girls on the other hand were dressed in blue, the perceived colour of the Virgin Mary.

For a long time then there was a gender-neutral way to dress young children: white dresses and long hair for everyone until the age of six or seven. White could be bleached easily when it became dirty and it was a neutral colour: you could not dress the child wrong. Why did this tradition disappear?

Pastel colours started to be used for baby clothing, but not in a gender specific way until the beginning of the 20th century. Shortly before WWI, colours started to become signifiers for gender, but just as suggestions. Others advised to dress children according to their hair and eye colours. The shift to colours was slow, and pink and blue not the primary choices.

The colours we know today were established in the United States in the 1940s. Clothing industries interpreted the preferences of the population to sell as much as possible. Marketing teams created separate, gender-specific clothes and toys that were advertised as “must-have”. The women’s liberation movement of the mid-60s and 70s slowed it down for a bit. Girls were dressed in un-feminine, sporty or even masculine styles. Clothing was seen as a mirror of and responsible for gender role models. The female dress code then supported women’s subservient role. Equal clothing, the movement thought, would bring about gender equality. “If we dress our girls more like boys and less like frilly little girls, they are going to have more options and feel freer to be active.” It was argued that we learn gender through external influences.

Until the 1980s, gender-neutral clothing remained popular. But the market returned to the gender-specific colours and made them more popular. Prenatal testing was a strong accelerator of this development. Future parents could know the sex of their child early and prepare. Through the production of individual and gender-specific clothing and now also toys, more could be sold.

Consumerism and pop culture are main drivers for gender stereotyping until today. Through the success of capitalism, this phenomenon has spread over the globe to various cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The reviewed articles all talk about the Western (US/European) context. In other cultural regions, the associations might still be different. But as long as any gender stereotyping exists, then the problem is still the same, no matter the colours.

Being raised in colours- what’s the matter?

“Gender stereotypes are ideas about how girls and boys, women and men are ‘supposed’ to act, talk, think, and behave”. The colours pink and blue are a manifestation of these stereotypes.

Children are given from very early on gender specific toys, when they are not even self-aware of their gender. Around the age of three or four, children start to become more aware. At that age they are impressionable and easy to influence. Market industry is using this in campaigns and advertisements that reinforce the stereotypical social conventions. It becomes visible that children accept the colour preferences they are socialised into. They avoid the colours they are supposed to dislike, they search for things that define them as girl or boy, whilst before they did not show a tendency to gender-specific colours and toys. Subconsciously, girls choose Barbie dolls and wear the pink in order to look feminine.

The way adults treat children affects them. When a kid wears blue and it is assumed to be a boy, people play more physical games with it than a baby dressed in pink, which receives dolls or cooking equipment to play with. Chances and behaviour of children are altered that way. This “blue versus pink” drives gender inequality. They limit the choices of children and hold them back from reaching their full potential.

Same as with colours, there are the clichés of what men and women are suited for, for example in politics: men for leadership and women for social tasks. This is due to the association of men with rationality and women with emotions. There is a pressure to feminine activities or to “be a man”, instead of behaving the way it feels right. This can lead to children being directed to particular interests or careers, just because it is the socially accepted choice.

Women with the leadership style of men are criticised for it, even though they use the same methods. The idea of men not showing emotions or weaknesses leads to some checking less often on their health and suppressing mental issues. Stereotypes affect the mental health, the self-esteem and body image of people. Bullying, discrimination, and other violence, especially towards non-binary people lead to that some do not express themselves fully. Gender stereotyping interferes with the gender children truly feel like. Transgender or gender nonconforming children, that are still raised according to a specific stereotype will be more confused and stressed than children who grew up without constant manifestation of binary genders.

A growing movement today promotes going back towards gender neutrality. Some stores introduce a gender-neutral policy. A whole community does not want to conform, tries to eliminate the stereotypes, demands neutral clothing, to not introduce this binary to kids so early. Boys are dancing ballet too and why wouldn’t girls be able to play basketball?

Bend it like Beckham, girls!

What does it tell us about pink and blue? This dominance could have been exactly the other way around. Or any other colours. The youngest children are attracted by primary colours like red and blue, but studies could not find any preferences. Such preferences are not natural, but a result of capitalism and popular culture, they are constructed and taught to us through socialisation. Gendered colours changed over the course of history. They mirror what femininity and masculinity mean in a society and how gender is understood. Therefore, it is important to call the colours, the stereotypes, the genders into question.

Everyone should have free choices and opportunities, no matter if they are different from the majority. And much that is taken for granted is socially constructed and not natural. Why should there be one colour for one gender? Societies can stop seeing gender as binaries, but look at individuals and support them in a way that everyone can make choices without feeling pressured to fit into a category.

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo credits

Pink Harley Davidson, Daniel Kirsch

Gender Symbol Male Female, Clker-Free-Vector-Images

Intersexuality Symbol,John Hain

Pregnant Lady, Worlds Direction, CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0)

The post Pink, blue and gender stereotyping appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The single rebellion and its happy lonely riders

Kristina Bartl — Mon, 06 Jan 2020 19:11:33 +0000

Way too often being single is seen as an unintentional stop on the way to a next relationship that will lead to a fulfilled life with a long-term partner. It seems to be easily forgotten that being single can also be your chosen final destination. It almost confuses people, when someone tells them that they are not dating with the main purpose of finding a partner. And this reaction is not surprising, when there are studies out there that display an image of sad and lonely millennials. Some even claim that our lack of (or too little) income and too much stress at Uni or work are the reasons for the high number of singles in our generation. The same factors are also used to explain why we choose renting a place over buying it. If I didn’t know better I’d almost believe that we are a generation of broke and highly depressed loners with commitment issues. Anyhow, there are other studies and articles that paint a picture of self-empowered individuals. Tinder published a survey that showed that 72 percent of the 1000 participants made an active choice to remain single. A generation of young people that don’t need a traditional relationship to feel fulfilled. Is it just a coincidence that the most educated generation is also the one that says farewell to traditional life-goals?

About relationships and happiness

The celebration of singledom has become an empowering movement over the last years. If we take a closer look, we will see that the main voices behind it have some things in common: They are all twenty-somethings, single (or in non-traditional partnerships) and identify as female. Before you pity any of them or even call them bitter single ladies, you should know that unmarried women without kids are the happiest group of people. Ironically men are healthier, when they are in a stable relationship. Taken this terribly outdated binary-based gender approach aside, it seems as if being in a heterosexual relationship is a rather unhealthy decision for women.

This does not mean that everyone should be hating on the male gaze or relationships in general, neither does it mean that the unhealthy aspects of relationships are related to the genitals one is born with. It is more a problem of social constructs and, as a consequence of that, also of toxic masculinity. From an early stage on almost everyone is conditioned to fulfill certain roles. Women are supposed to suppress themselves and their needs. Men on the other side are conditioned into being strong, whilst also being taught to deny their emotional side. Both can be really unhealthy in the long run, but especially men and the role they are taught to fulfill can become highly toxic for their partners and their relationships. It can lead to an inability to communicate feelings and emotions or non-appreciation of partners and their actions. A consequence of that could be ending up in an unequal relationship, were one party nurtures the other one, without getting anything in return. And now it makes sense that women become miserable in relationships with men, when society, radically spoken, is teaching the male part of the world population that they are superior over everyone without a penis. But those beliefs and habits can be unlearned and therefore, the genitals one is born with shouldn’t be used as an excuse for being a bad partner.

Become a lonely rider

For a long time being single, especially if you were a woman, has been seen as an equivalent to being a failure. Not that long ago, it was even more “tragic” to be a pregnant single woman. In Ireland some unmarried and pregnant women were even brought to so-called Houses of Shame. Which were a dangerous and harmful environment for both, the babies and their mothers. To full extent it became clear, when investigations earlier this year showed that over 800 children died in Irish mother and baby homes from 1925 to 1961. As you can see shaming women for embracing life in all its aspects, regardless of their relationship status, has a long history and could even lead to ending up in life-threatening circumstances. Even though, those official organizations, which were established for the purpose to punish women for not fitting into the rules of society, are less common in most parts of the world nowadays, some women still think that it is safer for them to stay in relationships that make them unhappy, instead of breaking them up. But, as mentioned above, young people are more and more likely to see that being single offers you more than an unhealthy partnership could. I know that I am diving into a sensitive topic here, so please note that I am not talking about severe physical or emotional abuse. I am talking about about staying with someone, who does not fulfill you, makes you unhappy or is taking advantage of you.

The question that comes up now is, why do some people still stick with their partner even though there is no rational reason for it? Well, it is not always that simple and sometimes people need to be nudged into making themselves less miserable. Artist and writer Florence Given empowers people worldwide to dump their spouse. About one year ago she broke up with her boyfriend and since then she did not only motivate other people to end their unhealthy relationships, but also spread a positive message regarding singledom. Her work inspires people to see dating more as something fun and exciting, rather than an instrument to find a new relationship. Her journey showed that letting go of the need to find someone else will eventually lead you to become closer to yourself.

Reclaiming our sexual power

Another woman I admire from afar is Ruby Stevenson. The non-monogamous bisexual sex educator is spreading her sex positive vibe and body positivity. Both topics have to be mentioned when we are talking about single life. Not being in a relationship does not mean that someone can’t or shouldn’t have sex, even though, women are being called out for satisfying their sexual needs by themselves or with sexual partner(s) and embracing their body, regardless if it fits society’s beauty standards. Stevenson takes it one step further, as she explains in an Instagram post about one of her public talks: “Being a slut is an attitude, and transcends the number of people you’ve slept with or what your sexual preferences are; it’s about embracing your sexuality with confidence.”

So please - in case you ever recognize that someone is being slut-shamed or you are experiencing it yourself, keep in mind, that being a “slut” is nothing to be ashamed of. Reclaiming words that are used to shame certain groups of people is a powerful move. Not only words that have an openly negative association, such as bitch or slut, should be reclaimed. Also the relationship status “single” itself should no longer stand for being depressed and lonely, because it can be the exact opposite!

Wrap it up

So basically, as soon as you realize that being single has nothing to do with being miserable, you will see that there is nothing to be afraid of and you will learn to embrace the independence that comes along with it. If you are in a happy and equal relationship, that’s great! But you’re not weird for not wanting a relationship and guess what? You don’t need one! You want to see that movie and finally have dinner at this new restaurant? Take a friend out on a fun night or just go by yourself. You prefer casual hook-ups over relationships? Just make sure to get yourself tested for STDs from time to time, have safe sex and you’re good to go. Do whatever you want to do, as long as you’re happy with it. What I’m trying to say is, and I can not stress this enough, don’t let anyone ever tell you again that you need a relationship for anything.

by Kristina Bartl

Photo Credits

Blowin' in the wind, Rajarshi Mitra, CC BY 2.0

Rotten Banana, Christoph Schütz

Banana Skin, Photorama

Juicy Peach, Daria Głodowska

The post The single rebellion and its happy lonely riders appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Empowering Society

Emilie Yung — Thu, 15 Nov 2018 15:09:48 +0000

Women are not the problem, it’s men

As a feminist and a young woman, I was both horrified and excited when the #MeToo movement began last October. Horrified, not because I was surprised that these things were happening every day, but because of the sheer number of women who bravely shared their experience with sexual assault. And excited, because I felt a spark of hope inside me – we were heading for change.

Last year, I’ve spent many hours thinking about how we reach that ‘change’ which we are so desperately in need of worldwide. I felt frustrated that once again, we (and by “we” I mean women) were given the task to make people care about and understand just how comprehensive the problem really is. In particular, I was looking for more men to participate in the conversation, but -from my viewpoint- they seemed to be missing (out).

Sexual violence in statistics

Global estimates published by the World Health Organisation indicate that 1 in 3 women worldwide have been exposed to either physical and/or sexual violence throughout their life.

An extensive survey from 2012 conducted by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights highlighted the sexual violence women face and experience within the 28 European member states. With 52% of women having experienced physical or sexual violence, Denmark takes the number one spot followed by Finland and Sweden.

In other places around the world, such as in Vietnam, the percentages are significantly higher. Research by International Charity ActionAid in 2016 found 87% of women have experienced sexual harassment at least once in their lifetimes. Conclusion: Sexual violence is everywhere.

But exactly who commits these assaults? In America, according to a 2010 survey by National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence, more than 90 percent of perpetrators of sexual violence against women are men. Interestingly, 93 percent of the perpetrators of sexual violence against men are in fact also men. Taking these facts into account, we must address the elephant in the room – one gender is more prominent than the other in these statistics. If men are at the center of the problem, then, they are integral to the solution.

So why do men struggle to engage themselves in the conversation?

Taking the lead

Wade Davis, a former National Football League player is now an activist and educator. At a conference on gender and workplace, he said , “Here’s what men don’t get about the #MeToo movement: It is not about women, it’s about us.” Suffice it to say, by “us” he meant men.

Educator, filmmaker and author, Jackson Katz, hosted a TEDxFiDiWomen talk where he stated that sexual violence is not a “women’s issue”, but instead a “men’s issue” due to a number of reasons. The primary reason is indeed, calling it a “women’s issue”. “This gives men an excuse to not pay attention.” He then illustrates that using the passive voice in relation to men excludes them from the conversation. With an exercise made by the linguist and author, Julia Penelope, he shows exactly how:

“John beat Mary.”

“Mary was beaten by John.”

“Mary was beaten.”

“Mary was battered.”

“Mary is a battered woman.”

Already in the third sentence ‘John’, the perpetrator, has left the picture and ‘Mary’ is now the focus. Katz says it illustrates structurally how we think and literally how language conspires to keep our attention off men. The goal, he explains, is to get men who are not a part of the abusive culture to challenge those who are, and use the bystander approach to interrupt and to create a peer culture climate where the abusive behavior will be seen as unacceptable.

“There’s been an awful lot of silence in male culture about this ongoing tragedy of men’s violence against women and children, hasn’t there? […] We need to break that silence, and we need more men to do that.”

This article is not a battle of genders. The problem is more so the structure of society that is off. How we speak about these issues is essential to cultivating a conversation where men are actively participating. It is also essential to furthering men’s willingness to take on their part of the responsibility. If we are to see a change in the future, we need to start challenging men to be leaders in these conversations and encourage them to be allies against a system of patriarchy.

I therefore invite all men to take a step towards change.

by Emilie Yung Meiling

Photo credits

Statstic, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2012

UN Women’s HeforShe Campaign, UN Women, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Azul Exclusive Auction Dress for 2lei, Bea Serendipity, CC BY 2.0

The post Empowering Society appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.