Tuesday, September 29, 2009

How (Not So) Far We’ve Come: Still “Doing Gender”

Last week I attended an Inequality Seminar here at Harvard. An attractive bonus to attending these lectures beyond exposure to work from scholars across the country is, to be honest, the free food. And due to the old habit of practicing good hygiene and the fear of Swine Flu, I went to the restroom to wash my hands before fixing me a plate. When I was leaving the bathroom I noticed that there was a baby changing station (pictured above) in the men's room. I smiled. For someone who was a Women's and Gender Studies major undergrad, I was happy to see that there was a baby changing station in the men's room as I have noticed the lack of them in many of the sporting, movie, and entertainment venues I frequented in the last year. And I think it is safe to say that I have only seen a few of the baby stations in men's bathrooms over the course of my life (of course more on this side of year 2000). This was, to me, was a step in the right direction. Go Social Progress!

The smile, however, faded quickly after I looked pass the family of elephants and saw the stereotypical, gendered depiction. Before I continue, I want to point out that the elephant family is a normative one—father, mother, and child—which is, to some degree, problematic in and of itself. Now I am not trying to make a mountain out of an anthill but one cannot (or at least should not) ignore the more subtle undertones of the seemingly "innocent" and "innocuous" depiction of the parent changing the child. This was a men's room yet still it was "Mommy" changing the child. Even in the quintessential, gender segregated location to which we all must abide lest we are called perverts or some kind of outcast by others in society, gendered norms and expectations are still as present, alive, and strong as ever. If one takes gender as a masternarrative, an ever-present entity in the background influences interactions between individuals in a myriad of ways, one sees the ways in which our actions and the behavioral expectations others have of us are scripted. Furthermore, we are looked upon to abide by those scripts. Where is Daddy elephant while Mommy changes Jr.? At the watering hole with the other bulls?

I think this cartoon on the baby changing station is an example that gives even more credence to the argument that we all do and are expected to "do gender." To paraphrase their 1987 article where Sociologists West and Zimmerman developed their revolutionary hypothesis that one can "do gender," gender is something one performs. This idea is important because it states that gender is not natural, not an innate characteristic of men and women. Rather, they assert that gender is

A routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishment. We contend that the 'doing' of gender is undertaken by women and men whose competence as members of society is hostage to its production. Doing gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical activities that cast particular pursuits of masculine and feminine 'natures.'

In essence, gender is determined not by one's biology, but by society's reaction to and perception of one's biology. Gender is one's conduct that affirms one's sex category. In other words, if one is male then one must act like a male, and if female, one must act female. A person's sex is a "biological fact;" sex categories reserve certain activities and characteristics for particular sexes, but gender consists of the "routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishments" of everyday life. West and Zimmerman argue that accountability plays a key role in producing gender, because not only are we responsible for "doing gender" on a daily basis, we are held socially accountable for all our actions—all decisions must be made as if being watched because each action either affirms or disproves our gender. But what do examples like this say about the expectations we have for women and men to perform in 2009?

I bring up West and Zimmerman here specifically because I think this picture shows the inertial force behind deeply held gendered expectations. Rubbermaid could have easily drawn one cartoon depicting a male caregiver changing his child and one showing a female caregiver doing the same. To my knowledge, very few places have only one single sex bathroom in their establishment. Even all girls all boys school have both men's and women's bathrooms. I would assume you have to buy the pair anyway. Or why not leave off the "human side" of things all together and remove oneself from the question of who to put changing the baby? If this post is seen as a one where the author is being nitpicky then so be it. But as the slogan from years ago simply and emphatically states, men are caregivers too. The last thing I will say is this: I believe it is time for us all to move beyond these false binaries which based on unfounded constructions of reality that are themselves the result of sociomental processes aimed at alleviating cognitive dissonance for living in a blurred instead of a dichotomous world.

6 comments:

  1. In graduate school 9 or so years ago when I was a parent of infants I was just happy to be able to find *any* changing tables in *any* bathroom on campus--and I am a woman. The message could not have been clearer: your children do not belong here.

    Not to denigrate anything you've written here. I agree. But the fact that this was on a *college* campus at all, let alone in a *men's* restroom is a huge step. That the depiction is lagging behind this great leap is unfortunate. But I bet if more pressure were put on campuses and other workplaces to install changing stations in men's restrooms, companies could be made to see how they need to adapt their visuals to accomodate this "new" market.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @PPR_Scribe Thanks for the comments. I agree with you. I think that's why in thinking about what to title and how to frame the post I focused on the "three steps forward, one step back" approach. On another note, I am happy that they have larger family bathrooms in different locations so that a guardian can change the child in a roomier, less packed, and less busy environment. However, even these are few and far between.

    I think your point is interesting about the pressure from the other side of the equation to make the pictures less gendered is an interesting one. I am a little skeptical just because something so subtle as the picture is overlooked while the more "substantive" argument for the changing stations to be present is one people can get behind.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very interesting article. I too often wonder about the bowels (no pun intended) of men's restrooms and whether or not they are clean enough let alone accomodating enough for men with babies. I agree with PPR_scribe to a certain extent in that there are not enough accomodating restrooms for parents with the caveat that there are also not enough facilities for OTHER individuals who need accomodation. So, dont feel alone. I do disagree with the message being loud and clear that "your children do not belong here". I think you have to look at everything in the context. College campuses, when built, were not built to accomodate women, let alone women and their children. Alot of extant facilities on campus and elsewhere for that matter have yet to be remodeled or modified to meet the current needs of every sensitive and offended soul who feels because there isnt a baby changing station, that people dont care about them or their children. Honestly, I wish more restrooms had syringe disposal receptacles, but I am not offended when they dont especially when I see the handicapped person in a wheelchair who is able to access the building because that particular establishment spent their money on a ramp and access door instead of a biohazard box for my syringes. Gender roles and responsibilities are ever-changing and it is difficult for establishments to keep up with them. While I do believe some ommissions are egregious, some are just a matter of times and trends changing too rapidly. The cartoon on the aforementioned baby station is an issue that needs to be addressed. That will be the day...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Tony - love to read this blog.
    No babies, only toilets involved in this comment.

    Ever thought or written about how disabled people are way more often sent to the women's than to the men's bathrooms?

    (I use the free men's room whenever the women's is occupied. The norma(l)/tive distinction between these two in public places surprise and bothers me every day. Too bad men can't do the switch more often as well, as indeed they will too easily be coined as perverts.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Such things will change when men consider them as important.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I know this post was like a million years ago! but this really helped me to understand this concept! Thanks a lot! and it's written so well too! :)

    ReplyDelete