The concept of chivalry - at least in its modern-day conception - engenders a select variety of exceptional scenarios wherein men are "socially expected" to serve women (as opposed to the reverse). Presumably, there are more instances of men opening doors, pulling out chairs, and getting the tab (just to name a few) for their female counterparts than the other way around. And although these prosocial behaviors performed by men aren't condemnable in and of themselves, their implications for the genders are nonetheless worth our attention. Put another way, what are the underlying values behind the idea of the chivalrous gentleman? How might these values possibly be undermining an egalitarian ideal for women and men?
The photo above depicts a role-reversal that challenges the hegemonic notion of a "real man." In our culture, real (heterosexual) men are called to exude chivalry and would not normally allow nor desire their female partner to open a car door for them (to cite but one classic example). What does this say about women in relation to men? It would seem, by default, there exists an assumption that women need men to take care of them; the broader implication, here, being that women are inferior to men and are thus afforded the "privilege" of their benevolent service. Under these circumstances, the benevolence is oppressive to and regressive for the female population because it upholds power disparities.
Benevolent sexism is both pervasive and difficult to identify, making it especially pernicious in nature. It is important to note that not all men are committing sexist acts when they choose to assist women - the real concern is what motivates them to action. My goal with this assignment was to challenge how we view the genders by presenting an image inconsistent with popular culture. Perhaps then we would be more inclined to question why we conduct ourselves the way that we do.
No comments:
Post a Comment