Gender Representations in Art

[Vladimir Berkov]

There is a difference between mental strength and physical strength. I doubt Rand saw a weak-minded woman as the ideal of femininity, but I also doubt she would see a female body-builder as the idea either.

Men are by nature, physically stronger and tougher than women. And mentally they are more predisposed towards weapons, warfare, violance, and combat. Thus a woman being physically strong and weilding a weapon, while not being necessarily a bad thing, is not feminine as such.

[Inspector]

Ironically (to me,) my masculine and KendallJ's masculine picture share the same qualities that are considered negative in the feminine pic.

Aren't those pictures equally "extraordinarily angry", combative, wrong?

I don't see the irony. It makes perfect sense to me. It was "wrong" in the female pic because it is masculine. That makes it completely right for the masculine pics.

Assessments excluding all non-delicate women and weak men?

Didn't someone cover this already? Non-delicate women aren't feminine, qua being non-delicate. Weak men aren't masculine qua being weak.

Does the statement "Bask in my manly weakness!" make any sense to you?

How about "Watch while I flex my big feminine muscles!"

Are they the ideal of femininity?

Did I say that delicate-ness was the be-all-end-all of femininity? No, just that it was one particular trait of it.

The two aren't necessarily polar opposites.

I think they are. If they are traits which differentiate man qua male and woman qua female, then by definition they would have to be mutually exclusive. They are comparative traits. I.E. trait "x" is masculine because men have more "x" than women. Trait "y" is feminine because women have more "y" than men.

while not being necessarily a bad thing, is not feminine as such.

Bingo. Hunter, re-read what I said and you'll say I said the same thing as Vladimir did, here. It's not that it's bad, as such that she has a sword. It's bad only in the context that the example was supposed to be of pure femininity. It was disturbing when surrounded by the other pictures, in this context.

An armed or agressive woman isn't a bad thing. But it also isn't an example of her being feminine. In the right circumstances, it's great for a woman to be both armed and agressive.

[KendallJ]

I don't see the irony. It makes perfect sense to me. It was "wrong" in the female pic because it is masculine. That makes it completely right for the masculine pics.

Hunterrose observation about emotional response to the same thing in both pictures is the kind of stuff I'm interested in. Frankly, I'd like to keep the assertions about masculinity and feminity to a lower level and the observations about the data up, or we end up begging the question - and ultimately we're going to end up in those weird exchanges where everyone is asserting there side, but no one is looking at the data. I'm looking for data in reality that points to places one could experiment to find some basis for asserting masculinity is X, feminity is Y. Without that, we'll just keep ending up to agree to disagree.

Differences in emotional responses to the same attributes indicate something fundamental I think.

Sonia has said her Romantic wouldn't have the same response to her if female was kissing male. Hunterosse has pointed out that the same attributes in feminine garned exact emotional response as the same attributes in masculine.

[KendallJ]

I think they are. If they are traits which differentiate man qua male and woman qua female, then by definition they would have to be mutually exclusive. They are comparative traits. I.E. trait "x" is masculine because men have more "x" than women. Trait "y" is feminine because women have more "y" than men.

While I definitely think there is some element of contrast required, I am not at all convinced of this statement. For instance I am not sure if you say X is the most important aspect of masculility, then it naturally follows that non-X is the most important aspect of feminity. This would be the polar opposite concept.

While "Bask in my manly weakness" doesn't make any sense. Neither does "Bask in my womanly weakness..." I am unconvinced that if you strength in males is part of masculininty, then it follows that weakness in females is feminine. I think weak looking females are unattractive, and unfeminine.

Plus, this sort of analysis limits you more cruder comparisions where quantitative levels make sense. It doesn't allow for comparisons of aspect. Here was Bold Standards essenses that he described...

Masculine

Adventurous

Intellegent

Feminine

Curious

Perceptive

Men have more intelligence than women? Men are more adventurous than women? Women are more curious than men? You can certainly reject Bold Standards descriptors out of hand, but you might end up rejecting a lot of descriptors to keep fit with your comparitive hypothesis. The hypothesis is supposed to explain the data right?

[Inspector]

While I definitely think there is some element of contrast required, I am not at all convinced of this statement. For instance I am not sure if you say X is the most important aspect of masculility, then it naturally follows that non-X is the most important aspect of feminity. This would be the polar opposite concept.

I never said that opposites, or polar opposites, were necessary. Just that if "X" is masculine, then something other than "X" is feminine, not that [x] (the opposite of "x") is. Because masculine and feminine are male/female differentiators, then something cannot be both masculine and feminine.

While "Bask in my manly weakness" doesn't make any sense. Neither does "Bask in my womanly weakness..." I am unconvinced that if you strength in males is part of masculininty, then it follows that weakness in females is feminine. I think weak looking females are unattractive, and unfeminine.

I'm not so sure. I would say that a woman's slender arms are feminine, and that slenderness, if you think about it, does in fact imply weakness. I don't think that it's the weakness, directly, that is feminine, but it is an inevitable part of what is.

[aequalsa]

I am interested now to have you go to an intellectual space. Essentialize for me what it is about your three peices that is the essence of the theme. I know that the works show fully integrated human beings (i.e. Man as productive, woman as rational, etc...), but focus on the key aspects of the works that essentialize the 3 themes. List only the top 2 for each. If you want to say a few words about why you chose the pieces and describe a bit about your emotional state as you view the peices as well, that's fine. Beyond that we can start comparing soem of what we see and see if anything is similar.

Sorry about the difficulties with my pics. The feminine and romantic are both by bill mack. When rich and famous I fully intend to collect his things. I really like em.

Masculine

Independent

Efficacious

Feminine

Introspective

Delicate

Romantic

'Forever' is difficult for me to consolidate into a single word(or 2). Maybe someone can help me. It has always looked to me like the guy was walking around, found some cozy spot and thought "hmm...that looks like a comfortable place to sit." Then the woman comes walking along and sees the nook formed by the mans bent and relaxed body and thinks "hmm...that looks like a comfortable place to sit."

I think there is an element of integration there for me. Not sure if that's the right word or not. Like they were quite literally made for each other. The woman also looks posessed and protected.

Incidentally, Kendall, I really admire this idea of yours for sorting out femininity and masculinity. Very procative. Thanks for the idea.

[aequalsa]

Incidentally, Kendall, I really admire this idea of yours for sorting out femininity and masculinity. Very procative. Thanks for the idea.

Procative? What the hell does that mean? hehe Anyways Proactive is what I had in mind.

[Inspector]

Procative? What the hell does that mean? hehe Anyways Proactive is what I had in mind.

Off topic: What the hell is with that word... "proactive?" Shouldn't it be either "Pro-action" or "active?" Why did they need to put a "pro" in front?

But back on topic, I agree that this approach is a very good idea. (even if I seem to have trouble following it!)

[Alfa]

There is a difference between mental strength and physical strength. I doubt Rand saw a weak-minded woman as the ideal of femininity, but I also doubt she would see a female body-builder as the idea either.

Men are by nature, physically stronger and tougher than women. And mentally they are more predisposed towards weapons, warfare, violance, and combat. Thus a woman being physically strong and weilding a weapon, while not being necessarily a bad thing, is not feminine as such.

I´d like to note that muscular bulk does not necessarily display strength. You mention body-builders, look at some of the Mr. Olympia guys today. They look like monsters, and yes they look strong. However, they also look fat and bloated(which is quite ironic since the have dangerously low bodyfat levels when competing).

Smaller guys can look powerfull in a more athletic way. Perhaps you can say they display strength in relation to their physical abillities. They look strong, able and healthy even though they cant lift monstrous weights. This can also be true for women. A strong and atheltic woman can look gracefull and feminine. But that is certainly not true for female pro body-builders who have enough testosterone for ten avarage men.

[aequalsa]

Off topic: What the hell is with that word... "proactive?" Shouldn't it be either "Pro-action" or "active?" Why did they need to put a "pro" in front?

But back on topic, I agree that this approach is a very good idea. (even if I seem to have trouble following it!)

I really don't know. I guess it is kinda like irregardless. Which means what? without-without regard?

English can be stupid.

[Alfa]

I think the fact that all three pieces show clothed figures is important. To me, a naked figure is not exactly a complete human being. The plain, unadorned body is mans animal element, which requires no thought and about which a man or woman has little control. Clothes and other adornments are where the physicality of the body meets the mental capacity which only man possesses. The same is true to some extent of a person's speech and posture.

Thus when I look at a naked figure in artwork I see no insight into its humanity. It is simply a body disconnected from the mental effort of the mind.

I think the nakedness can tell alot about the person. How does the person carry his/her nakedness? With guilt and shame, or pride? How does the person pose - how would he/she like to be percieved? Strong, powerfull, confident, sexy, joyfull etc.? And even though much of ones appearance is deterimined by genetics, a good healthy life will show on the body - as well as a hard and destructive life. Your activities determine very much how you will look.

I decided to submit my picture on the feminine after reading your post. There you have a very naked woman with a confident, challenging look on her face. It´s like she´s thinking; "Well, here I am, naked, what are you gonna do about that?". Put some clothes on her and she would still be gorgeous and sexy, but I think the nakedness adds to her confidence. The picture shows both body and mind, as it should be.

Dont get me wrong now. Clothes can also be an interesting feature. However, I think you are separating the physical from the mental too much.

[Inspector]

Vladimir,

In your picture, I wonder to myself: is there a woman underneath all that fluff? Did you select it simply because she was clothed, or did you seek out the kind of clothing that greatly obscures the form underneath?

[LaszloWalrus]

I really don't know. I guess it is kinda like irregardless. Which means what? without-without regard?

English can be stupid.

Technically, "irregardless" is not a real word, irregardless of common usage.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Dont get me wrong now. Clothes can also be an interesting feature. However, I think you are separating the physical from the mental too much.

But the clothes are a physical aspect, in addition to a mental one. I don't think nakedness is a bad thing, but I also don't think it is the ideal representation of a human.

Vladimir,

In your picture, I wonder to myself: is there a woman underneath all that fluff? Did you select it simply because she was clothed, or did you seek out the kind of clothing that greatly obscures the form underneath?

Neither. The fact that a woman is wearing clothing is not inherently appealing or ideal. Nor is the fact that the clothing shows only a small amount of skin. What I find fascinating is the combination of the body plus the clothes, plus the mind/attitude of the subject, plus the skill of the artist.

It is not about obsuring the form, but focusing the attention of the viewer on what the artist, and the subject find most important. For instance, look closely at the painting. Notice how the background and the clothes are dark and don't draw attention to themselves. Instead, the contrast with the woman's face draws your eye immediately to it, highlighting her expression, particularly the eyes and smile.

Similarly, the long white glove focuses the eye on her hand and the very elegant and particular way she holds the leash on her dog. The delicate hand being used to control the dog says a lot, I believe. It is not accidental.

None of these insights would be communicated to the viewer were the woman nude. Too, often the hint or suggestion of nakedness or the human form can be much more erotic and sensual than the actual bare nakedness itself.

The woman in the painting is the Marchesa Luisa Casati, a google search about whom would not be a waste of time.

[KendallJ]

Vladimir, I responded positively to your clothing of either subject. I am wondering if you can contrast how you use the clothing in masculine vs. feminine.

I am still stewing on my premise that Masculine seems to be shown in context, while for most, Femine is more abstracted. Your selections seem to contradict that in some ways, although the Masculine is still more what I called "purposeful context".

Anyway, can you elaborate?

I never said that opposites, or polar opposites, were necessary. Just that if "X" is masculine, then something other than "X" is feminine, not that [x] (the opposite of "x") is. Because masculine and feminine are male/female differentiators, then something cannot be both masculine and feminine.

OK, that I agree with. In fact, I sense that what we'll find is that masculine/feminine are emphasize different aspects of humanity, neither of which can be said to be negative.

I think many people emotionally (like my wife ) respond to "masculinity is strength...". "oh, and so feminity is weakness?" she might say.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Vladimir, I responded positively to your clothing of either subject. I am wondering if you can contrast how you use the clothing in masculine vs. feminine.

It really boils down to the differences in clothing between men and women, and carrying those differences to their logical conclusions in finding an ideal representation of it.

Mens clothing emphasizes masculine physical attributes, especially the shoulders and chest. It is traditionally less restrictive and more practical than womens clothing, reflecting the traditional role of men as "men of action" who are responsible for things which involve physical activity, etc. The ultimate masculine clothing is of course the military uniform. Epaulettes draw attention to the shoulders, while belts emphasize the narrow waist and add to the illusion of a broad chest. Not to mention the fact that military activities are innately masculine in nature. Riding clothes, hunting outfits, safari gear and such are masculine for similar reasons.

Womens clothing emphaizes feminine attributes, such as the the bust, hips and waist. Since strenuous labor isn't very feminine, womens clothing need not be greatly utilitarian to be attractive on a woman. Womens clothing can be flowing and extravagent, or skimpy and impractical and yet still be feminine. Ideally, womens clothing also reflects feminine movement, such as the swish of a skirt while walking, etc. The fact that most modern women wear mens clothing I find rather un-feminine however. Even Ayn Rand had some sort of fascination with women in pants, perhaps because she prefered them. Neverless, pants, even those designed for women are virtually never feminine.

[LaszloWalrus]

The fact that most modern women wear mens clothing I find rather un-feminine however. Even Ayn Rand had some sort of fascination with women in pants, perhaps because she prefered them. Neverless, pants, even those designed for women are virtually never feminine.

I don't find anything unfeminine about pants. What do you find unfemine about them?

[Vladimir Berkov]

I don't find anything unfeminine about pants. What do you find unfemine about them?

They are not feminine because they are in fact, mens clothing which has migrated to womens clothing. This is partly due to cultural context. Look at the symbols for "mens restroom" and "womens restroom." Which symbol is wearing pants and which one a dress? For that matter, consider the question "Who wears the pants in the family?"

The masculinity of pants is likely the reason why Rand chose to outfit Dagny in them, to illustrate Dagny's pursuit of traditionally masculine career and goals.

[Bold Standard]

Technically, "irregardless" is not a real word, irregardless of common usage.

How are you defining "real word" here? Most dictionaries list it as a "nonstandard" word, but it is a word. Actually, I read a William Safire (language collumnist for New York Times) article ("TO IR- IS HUMAN") about the origin of this word a while back.

And what of irregardless -- as so many readers ask, is that a word?

The opening "ir-" means "not" or "without" and the closing -less also means "without," which turns the locution into arrant nonsense.

First cited in Harold Wentworth's dialect dictionary in 1912, irregardless was probably intended to be a joke, and the deliberate mistake is today used with humorous intent, although some don't get the joke and make the mistake.

Because it is mainly a jocular word, the answer is yes, irregardless is a word, and that is why lexicographers put it in dictionaries with a rolling of the eyes and a warning not to take it seriously.

[Bold Standard]

Sorry, dude, tech difficulties.

They are not feminine because they are in fact, mens clothing which has migrated to womens clothing. This is partly due to cultural context.

Partly? You mean, as in, entirely?

[LaszloWalrus]

"Nonstandard" means "not a real word." Are the "words" in ebonics also real words? They, too are nonstandard. "Nonstandard" is, incidentally, a euphemism for "substandard."

My dictionary says this:

"Irregardless is avoided by careful users of English."

Yes our culture traditionally associates pants with masculinity, but I don't think its any kind of particularly objective association. By contrast, I think a sword is masculine (and would be) irregardless of cultural context.

Running a railroad is also traditionally masculine, but I don't find Dagny any less feminine for running one.

[Bold Standard]

Well. Maybe it ain't a real word.

[FeatherFall]

I very much like the idea of this thread. I have not posted any pictures myself, but I will post some if people need concrete examples of my input. I restrict most of my points to those pictures already posted.

Masculine: The pictures regarding masculinity differ in concretes, but the emotions evoked and general themes are similar: Strength, confidence, etc. I tend to think of these types of concretes when thinking of masculinity. My ideal representation of a man would have him engaging in an impossible task and succeeding. The best representations of this give me a sort of vicarious thrill as if I am the one doing the task.

Feminine: The pictures presented were (neglecting subtle differences) similar with the exception of the bride. While I personally got a lackluster and negative emotional response from the bride, if I were to post my ideal representation of a woman, I think it would have garnered responses similar to those of the bride.

I get strong emotional/attractive responses from the type of woman who's body houses a lioness. A woman preparing for or engaging in battle might very well fit this description. However, I would not have posted something like that to the thread-- this thread is about masculinity/femininity, not my ideal woman. When I think of femininity, I don't think of the pose I would most like to see my ideal woman taking.

my ideal woman would have an athlete's physique. Examples of near ideal physiques for women in this thread include Kendall's and Vicki's romance post and Vicki's feminine post. Even simple healthy physiques can create strong responses when coupled with the right appearance, such as both Sophia and Kendall's feminine posts.

If I were to post an example of the feminine to this thread, she would be more physically powerful than all of the female examples so far. Her muscles would be well defined, though she would certainly not be a body builder (I don't think male or female body builders are attractive). She would be involved in an action like swimming or dancing, with an emphasis on motion and grace.

Romance: I prefer to see both parties reveling in the other, to the exclusion of all else. Conquering and submitting do little for me. Of the romance posts, my favorite examples were Vladimir Berkov's, Sophia's, David's, Kendal's and Vicki's. I especially liked Sophia's and David's.

I think David's is particularly interesting. The woman has just finished reading what is obviously a letter from her lover. She neglects her cigarette and takes a relaxed pose to (presumably) daydream about the contents of the letter. Again, I really liked this one.

[Adrian Hester]

"Nonstandard" means "not a real word."

Actually, "nonstandard" means "not part of the standard language." If you define word as "A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning..." (American Heritage Dictionary), which is a pretty standard definition, then nonstandard words are as real as any other words; they're just not acceptable in standard English.

Are the "words" in ebonics also real words? They, too are nonstandard.

They communicate meaning, so sure they're words. Should they be used in formal writing? No.

"Nonstandard" is, incidentally, a euphemism for "substandard."

Actually, there's sometimes a distinction made between the two: "Some dictionaries use the term substandard to describe forms, such as ain't, associated with uneducated speech, while reserving nonstandard for forms such as irregardless, which are common in writing but are still regarded by many as uneducated." (AHD again.) Often the two words are used interchangeably, however.

[hunterrose]

I never said that opposites, or polar opposites, were necessary. Just that if "X" is masculine, then something other than "X" is feminine, not that [x] (the opposite of "x") is. Because masculine and feminine are male/female differentiators, then something cannot be both masculine and feminine.

Fair enough, but you have said that something was unfeminine because it was masculine, and that would only be true if they were indeed (polar) opposites. If they aren't polar opposites, then a feminine picture wouldn't be unfeminine just because it exhibited strength.

I'd like to keep the assertions about masculinity and feminity to a lower level and the observations about the data up.

I'll try

It seems to me that most people are acting on the polar opposite conception of masculinity/femininity. There have been several posts that imply or outright say that aspects of masculinity make a subject unfeminine. Does this also hold for a masculine man who possesses some feminine qualities?

She would be involved in an action like swimming or dancing, with an emphasis on motion and grace.

I'd agree with grace/fluidity as a strong aspect of femininity. However, I don't think the 'lioness' aspect necessarily detracts from femininity, any more than a very handsome/graceful male picture would take away from its masculinity.