The ethnographic research of Karin Martin (1998) shows how children are molded into gender roles in subtle and overt ways by the school system. I thought these were such interesting theories. If one wanted to ensure a person was subservient, one might make this person feel her body was inherently weaker, in a word, inferior. This applied to an entire class of people could explain the social control imposed on women by way of the encouragement to act “ladylike” and rewarding behavior that is “gender appropriate” in schools. As Martin puts it, “Bodies that clearly delineate gender status facilitate the maintenance of the gender hierarchy” (Martin, 1998, p. 495).
It’s hard to imagine any reasonable explanation why a certain class of people is encouraged to behave in a much more controlled and “shrunken” way.

 “Thus, these theorists suggest that gender differences in minute bodily behaviors like gesture, stance, posture, step, and throwing are significant to our understanding of gendered selves and gender inequality” (Martin, 1998, p. 495).

Why are women asked to do things that aren’t asked of men, things that make their lives more difficult or constrained? In this way, it is easy to see how biological explanation for the differences in male and female comportment could be in service to oppression—to granting more power to men.

“Scholars run the risk of continuing to view gendered bodies as natural if they ignore the processes that produce gendered adult bodies” (Martin, 1998, p. 495).

This made me think of how gender-neutral clothing has become quite popular, particularly among late-Millennial parents who have more egalitarian views of gender. There are now gender-neutral clothing collections in common department stores such as Target. This seems like a modern trend, but it’s actually quite old fashioned! When I was a docent at the Wisconsin Historical Museum (on the Capitol Square) I learned why we had a page from an old Sears-Roebuck catalog in an exhibit. The page advertised something brand new at the time: clothing for little boys! In an interesting (if dated in re terminology) article from Smithsonian Magazine (Maglaty, 2011) explains why it appears President Franklin Roosevelt is dressed like a girl in a photo of him at age 2. It had been traditional in America for boys and girls to wear the same clothing and hair “until age 6 or 7, also the time of [a boy’s] first haircut” (Maglaty, 2011).

The gender-neutral clothing of 2018 leans toward functionality and is, therefore, less feminine than the gender-neutral clothing of 1884 when children weren’t expected to be as physically active. I think, however, that we could learn something from this time in that gender-neutral should mean that boys can wear skirts, dresses, and frills, too! I am reminded of Jeffrey “Young Thug” William’s 2016 album cover in which he is wearing “a frothy baby blue skirt, white button-down shirt, and a conical pleated hat by Italian designer Alessandro Trincone” (Patel, 2018). While much of femininity may be predicated on controlling the ability and capacity of women, gender-neutrality should be inclusive of femininity as an aesthetic or political choice and not restrict itself to opening the masculine aesthetic.

References

Maglaty, J. (2011, April 11). When did girls start wearing pink?. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/#h3xge77DOHtD0aYJ.99

Martin, K. (1998). Becoming a gendered body: Practices of preschools. American Sociological Review, 63(4), 494-511. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2657264 

Patel, S. (2018, July 9). Alessandro Trincone tackles toxic masculinity. Paper Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.papermag.com/alessandro- (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.trincone-spring-2019-2585207954.html