Creating Notions of Gender

   

     The first time I looked at this advertisement I was drawn in by its simple sexiness- now in the media and advertisement we’re told to set these sort of “raw” raw images to a new standard. They create a seemingly refreshing change from all the outlandish and over the top images in high fashion we’re bombarded with every day.  However, it’s just the image that is simplified- if anything, this diptych promotes even more straightforward and unapologetic statements about our society’s notions of gender.

     Let’s start with the most obvious here: The ad clearly sells “Men’s Shirts”…but a woman is modeling it. Topless. She clutches like she could take it off at any second. This is not rare in any fashion ad- we all know “sex sells”. And yet, this ad says a lot more about the expectations of males and females in society’s sexual relationships than the act of sex itself.

     So this ad implies that if a man buys this shirt, he will own it. It is now an extension of him. When a woman puts his shirt on, it’s almost like she belongs to him as well. This could go as far back as when woman were considered property, and still are in some parts of the world. Either way, a woman wearing a man’s shirt and nothing else sort of simultaneously supports stereotypes about male dominance and sexual prowess, as well as female sexual availability and willingness. If a man looks at “his girl” wearing his shirt, he sees it as attractive because it’s a piece of him on her, almost as if marking his territory. It feeds into the stereotypes of masculinity that rule our popular culture: it is overpowering, it cloaks femininity, in this case both literally and figuratively.

      I mean, think about it. The idea of seeing your girlfriend in nothing but one of your big shirts is sexy. But ladies, does the idea of him in your pink turtleneck turn you on? If it does, more power to you. But there is some very interesting double standards that arise when we start to cross so called masculine and feminine characteristics. Putting a female’s shirt on a man would almost seem to degrade him. A male, especially heterosexual, might feel embarrassment or loss in confidence because with the shirt comes a decrease in masculinity. He doesn't actually lose any testosterone, no. But a male with female qualities is generally noted as not as sexually attractive and maybe even “weak”. Femininity taints masculinity whereas adding the right touch of masculinity creates sexiness.

     It’s just like crossing “masculine” and “feminine” actions and emotions: If a woman can fix a car, or works as a cutthroat, high powered executive (and she can do it all in heels) there’s a certain amount of sex appeal that comes with that. If a man wears is “oversensitive” or works in fashion or even has a sense of style that is unique from other males he identifies with, his sexuality is questioned and he is viewed as less attractive.

     You could blame all of that on human nature, but the fact of the matter is, gender is a social construct. Its ideals are fabrications of society that divide people into two hegemonic categories- anyone pushed outside or between the two is a marginalization. There are expectations pushed at us from all sides. Ads like this try to tell us about ourselves, try to construct our desires by giving masculinity a transferable power and then telling men that they can have this masculinity along with the shirt. This image just sort of defaces the individual woman in all her complexity and instead markets her as something to own and dress and look at. It also expects a lot of a heterosexual man’s masculinity and sexual being, while at the same time marginalizing any other type of sexual relationship but heterosexual.  All of this construction of what it means to be male and female in popular culture is built into these images, and the fact that we walk by them every day without even stopping to ponder what they say about us as we identify ourselves in society is a fascinating and somewhat alarming thing.