The Restrictive Norms of Femininity
Introduction
Conducting this particular sociological activity is to serve the very purpose of exploring and examining the unspoken gender norms deeply entrenched in this patriarchal society by breaching the unsaid social rule itself and observing people’s reactions. Building upon the activity, the analysis of social implication of the individual actions will be offered as follow.
Method
The activity was conducted at Cinnamon College of University Town. Ten participants were selected: two boys from Japan, two girls from China, one boy and one girl from Hong Kong, two boys from Singapore, and rest of the two boys from India. Through selecting the participants from different cultural, language and national background, I believe diversity can help to ease the potential doubts of applicability and generalizability of the results and findings.
The definition of femininity on the basis of the socially sanctioned norms and standards is enumerated as follow: (1) Feminine fashion; (2) Feminine behaviors; (3) High pitch of the voice and feminine way of talking; (4) Showing fragility; (5) submissive and not overly assertive. During the experiment, I had attempted to breach the restrictive norms of femininity as listed above through various steps to examine how the selected participants would react to my behaviors that are clearly deviated from the ideal definition of femininity in society.
We gathered at the lounge to plan to go somewhere to have breakfast. The very first rule I breached was “wearing feminine clothes”. To complete this goal, I dressed in a less feminine fashion: messy hair arrangement, baggy jeans, loose T-shirt with XL size, dirty sneakers and no make-up. In accordance with expectation, as I appeared in front of them, all of them seemed to attempt to say something but showed hesitation; several seconds later, they realized they had not say “hi” yet. One of the Japanese male participants said jokingly and circuitously, “You look… kind of… very different today! Casual style haha”. The second rule I broke was one of the most prominent feminine characteristics – that is being submissive, compromising, cooperative, nurturing and not overly assertive. As we had to make a decision based upon consensus to choose where to go, I remained silent at the very beginning – listening to the others’ preferences. The discussion was unfolded in the fashion that male naturally becomes the dominant idea initiator and dominant decision maker: it was the male participants from Hong Kong and India suggested to go to Flavor by saying “I am for Flavor”; the other female participants acquiesced. Once almost everyone reached the consensus, so as to reverse this decision, I suddenly became extremely assertive and uncompromising by stating my preference without any signs of compromises, “why should we go there! We should go out of campus. The food there is just horrible”. They hesitated for a while: two Indians and two Japanese male participants showed clear reluctance to agree upon my suggestions, which entirely overturned the suggestion and decision that they initiated. They appeared to avoid displaying any signs of disagreement, but they still slightly frowned. Yet the male from Hong Kong explicitly showed his insistence by strongly disagreeing with me and arguing that it is a total waste of time to go out to eat breakfast while there are places to have decent meals on-campus. Afterwards, I broke another rule of femininity – “feminine behaviors”, “fragility rule”, and “feminine way of talking”, by arguing back in an affirmative, husky and croaky voice and placing my fists on my waist – so as to assert my strength and power physically. This time made them more uncomfortable: the Hong Kong male participant rolled his eyes and impatiently said, “hey, just a breakfast, okay? Calm down”; two Japanese tended to be the most silent amongst all, but still they kept looking at each other and stared at me with a displeased look, apparently disturbed and annoyed.
Discussion
Ten male participants’ reactions appeared to be merely individual in response to my behaviors, yet the way society is constructed could be derived from their individual actions, and in effect vice versa. In other words, the term “sociological imagination” explains it all, which is a dialectical dynamic and defined as “the vivid awareness of the relationship between personal experience and the wider society” (Mills, 1959), meaning that while invisible social forces – historical, political and cultural discourse – in society can rationalize individuals’ predicament and actions, individuals can also have large influences upon social structures.
In this case, the male participants were all astounded at my behaviors. Their reactions should be considered as purely natural by explaining them in a larger social context, for the reason that everyone in society has been spoon-fed on the paradigm of normative femininity and masculinity.
The historical and cultural discourses are always the significant indicators to explain the relationship between the individual choices and collective norms. Thus the brief examination of overall Asian cultures from the historical perspectives – so as to clarify the origin of patriarchal society – is perhaps warranted. Under the shared cultural influences of Chinese philosophical cultures, most Asian countries are predominantly shaped based upon patriarchal principles highlighted by Confucianism that describes female roles as “when young, a woman should submit to her father; when married, she should submit to her husband; and when she is old, she should submit to her sons” (Norden & W, 2008). By receiving enormous influences from Confucius culture throughout history, the patriarchal nature had been a dominant force driven to construct the identity of Asian community and lay the solid foundation for contemporary patriarchal society. In general, female’s role had been highly restricted to domestic sphere, instead of public domain. Instead of being active in politics and dedicated to education, the virtue of compliance to husband has been vastly emphasized. In addition to that, liberation of female body also had largely been strictly forbidden – as manifested by the historical practice of binding of foot, which most notably resulted in permanent disabilities. Moreover, from the aspect of family—a microcosm of society, males were traditionally regarded as a principal head of one family who controlled the most significant part of the family affairs and son, instead of the daughter, was expected to inherit all the fortunes and power within the family, and even business occasionally. Apart from that, young girls had been longtime objectified through a variety of means – such as serving as means of paying off the accumulative family debts, the objects of cross-border marriages so as to pacify the diplomatic tensions along boundaries, or tools of pleasure exploited by males who had prominent social status in particular and whatnot. Those historical and cultural practices that had normalized and perpetuated gender inequality throughout history in the region, thereby reinforced the “femininity” norms, are the hidden social forces behind the individual actions such that people tend to categorize femininity into binary fashion – normal and abnormal. The uncomfortableness expressed by the participants had proved everything: they felt uncomfortable because my behaviors are not feminine enough.
Besides the social forces of historical discourse, from the vantage point of feminist theory, the male participants’ reactions and dominance of decision making process during the experiment can be interpreted as manifestations of male’s dominance over female in the interpersonal relationship perpetuated as in virtue of the patriarchal social structure. Under the control of patriarchal system, the feminists might argue that, the definition of the normative femininity is institutionalized (Gruss, 2009), in which deliberately differentiates the males and females in terms of their powers. More specifically speaking, the patriarchal society perpetuates power inequality by imposing upon women the institutionalized definition of roles and expectations for the purpose of reinforcing women’s inferior social status on the one hand and solidifying men’s social, material and social status on the other hand. The evidence that the male participants were surprised, or feeling “not normal”, at my appearances and outfits demonstrates the institutional imposition of “beauty standard” upon women – widespread of cosmetic industry is one of the noticeable examples –who are constantly physically and sexually objectified. Simply put, women are never liberated from the patriarchal definition femininity; women are always being judged and measured based upon certain framework that patriarchal society defines for them.
The whole world is constructed in the sense that is deliberately categorized on the basis of a rigid binary system, which oversimplifies the complex world into black-and-white fashion. So is gender. Our patriarchal society dictates the definition of normative gender identity, roles, and expectations, which demands us to play our “correct” and “normal” gender identity and roles in strict accordance with socially recognized definition and physical embodiment. This problematic social and cultural framework can potentially marginalize the groups who do not fit into these so-known normative categories. Such construct compels people to constantly question about their “normality”. Girls are living in a girls-should-be-like-Barbie society, in which constantly tells about how a girl is supposed to behave. Many are oppressed and not given freedom to fully express their own form of definition of “femininity”. Society penalizes those deviated and rebellious individuals who do not comply social definition of femininity by outcasting them. It is not how femininity is supposed to be defined in the 21st century world today; it should be liberated from oppression of imposition by patriarchal society through acknowledging a form of a more complex and pluralistic framework.