Do the Clothes Make the (Wo)Man?: A Look at Gender Stereotypes
By Victoria Mastrangelo
Social media is the gift that keeps on giving, bringing us one controversy after another. Some of these controversies endure; others quickly fade out or are eclipsed by the constant churning of the news cycle. One such controversy focused on the December cover photo of Vogue featuring Harry Styles in a dress. This piece resulted in praise from some for breaking stereotypes and promoting gender fluidity, while others criticized it and put out a call to “Bring back manly men” on Twitter.
While this social media reaction lasted only a few days at most, I ended up in several conversations about enduring questions that seem to underlie these reactions: Why do we continue to rely on gender stereotypes to define femininity and masculinity? Is femininity really defined by wearing a dress?
I find this particularly interesting in some more “conservative” Catholic and Christian circles since the tunic that Jesus and his Apostles would have worn was shaped like a dress, and the cassocks that priests, bishops, and the pope wear are shaped like dresses. Does this make these men any less masculine?
The underlying issue here seems to be that we continue to base our understanding of what women and men are on socially conditioned gender stereotypes or superficial exteriors like clothing, the type of work one can or ought to do, emotional expression, etc.
A lot of cultural confusion about gender and sexuality, in some part, stems from the paradoxical values of secular feminism that maintains the gender stereotype of women wearing dresses––therefore praising Harry Styles’ embracing of his “feminine side”––while simultaneously arguing that femininity shouldn’t be shaped by those same stereotypes. When we lose our understanding of gender and sex, the result is a debate about what makes men manly and women feminine. So, if superficial exteriors don’t determine a true femininity, what does?
Gender Stereotypes’ Effects on Women
Second Wave feminists are often, and unfairly, remembered as the bra-burning generation. This stems from a protest of the Miss America pageant of 1968 in which they symbolically threw out, but did not burn, what they believed to be the definitive socially constructed view of beauty: lipstick, high heels, and yes, bras. They were ultimately pushing back against the cultural norm of beauty and the stereotypes that defined femininity––those things that women wear or apply to make them fit into a standard of beauty.
As a woman who feels significantly more comfortable in jeans, a t-shirt, messy bun, and Toms shoes, I understand and support the ideas of this protest. Women of many generations, not just those of the Second Wave, have often felt boxed in by stereotypes and have questioned themselves when they don’t fit into them. At some point in our lives, most of us have probably felt the plummeting of self-esteem that comes with reading women’s fashion or lifestyle magazines. While we are beginning to embrace the diversity of bodies and appearances in broader society, it’s not yet making it onto magazine covers or other popular media that continue to put the same conventionally beautiful women on their covers that advertise diets and beauty products.
These stereotypes go beyond the expectations of beauty but they have also informed how some people believe women should act, speak, and work. Even in 2019, Catholics continue to debate whether women should be able to work outside of the home because traditional gender roles and stereotypes have convinced some circles that women should be quiet, dress modestly, and be home working with the children or on dinner. Women are natural caretakers, and none of these characteristics are negative in and of themselves, but the stereotype has backed women into a corner––of being seen as weaker, more emotional, and less practical.
These stereotypes set us up to expect women to cry or respond emotionally, to want to be with their children constantly, to love cooking and baking and crafting, and to be worried more about interior decor than finances and oil changes. As Catholics, these stereotypes can be especially damaging to single women and women who suffer from infertility. Many women feel that there is no place for them in the Church or that their lives do not begin until they get married and have children. It can also make it difficult to discern a call to religious or consecrated life because a vow of chastity is not valued in a worldview governed by these stereotypes.
In an effort to correct this view of women, the other extreme tends towards expecting that women be career-focused and driven by their ambition. This kind of woman is often portrayed as manipulative and emotionless, doing anything it takes to get to the top. They are often seen as only looking out for themselves and bringing down others to gain the “one spot at the table for women” in their field.
A true understanding of the feminine genius includes a spiritual maternity and the pouring out of maternal gifts, whether they be used in a career or shared with biological children. Both the Catholic and wider culture need to open up space for women to be exactly who God called them to be and create structures that support them in this diversity of vocations.
Manly Men?
As women, we know the harm that has been done by these stereotypes and the barriers that they have created to women’s success in many areas. However, the controversy with Harry Styles has made me think about the harm that these stereotypes have caused men as well and the relationship between men and women. What is a “manly man” and where has he gone that we need to bring him back?
We can begin by looking at Styles’ primary critic on Twitter who began the call to bring back manly men. Candace Owens first tweeted that “There is no society that can survive without strong men. The East knows this. In the west, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence.” She followed up with a clarification, “I meant: Bring back manly men. Terms like ‘toxic masculinity,’ were created by toxic females.” Reading through the threads, those in support of Owens’ claims agreed with a need for “strong men” or “powerful men” to bring back true masculinity.
Men have historically been seen as the stronger, smarter, more superior sex. “Real men” are supposed to be strong, smart, confident, capable, and, most importantly, not emotional. Owens goes so far as to say that no society can “survive without strong men.” How is strength being defined? When it comes to gender roles and stereotypes, it typically means a physical strength or power. This emphasis on strength means that men cannot show emotion, nor react in a way that may connote weakness, since emotions are for women.
The American Psychological Association (APA) released a new set of guidelines for working with men and boys in 2019 and they “posit that males who are socialized to conform to ‘traditional masculinity ideology’ are often negatively affected in terms of mental and physical health.” The guidelines go on to suggest that some of these side effects include “risk-taking, violence, dominance, primacy of work, need for emotional control, desire to win, and pursuit of social status” as well as the tendency toward “depression, stress, body image problems, substance abuse and poor social functioning.” As a society, we can see how this has played out with issues ranging from the emotionally distant spouse/parent to the abusive one. When the emphasis is placed on a specific brand of acting in a manly way, everyone loses.
When trying to correct the problem of “toxic masculinity,” we must preserve the masculine genius without throwing out all that it means to be a man. While emotional control, violence, and risk taking are dangerous, there are healthy ways for men to act in a masculine way. Competitiveness and a desire to be successful are not bad in and of themselves, nor is it problematic to pursue professional success in order to provide for a family. St. Paul emphasizes that men do have a leadership role within their families. The issue with “toxic masculinity” is when these traits or desires are made the end all, be all of what it means to be a man––moving from the healthy and appropriate individual manifestation of these characteristics into the controlling and dangerous.
As Catholics, this view of men should be concerning. Not only has this expectation of masculinity led to a “toxic masculinity” that sees itself as better than or superior to women, but it may also be an obstacle for men pursuing sanctity. When men see their strength in their dominance or in putting all of their efforts into their work or achieving success, they are not truly working for the good of the family. Wives and children need a man who puts God, not work, first; someone who is present to them and truly leading the family to God. He is a man of prayer, of compassion, of sacrifice, and servant-leadership. Stereotypically, these are not usually considered “manly” expectations.
The true example of masculinity is St. Joseph, whom we are called to celebrate this year. He models the stereotypical qualities of being a protector and provider for Jesus and Mary, as well as a heroic courage in remaining with Mary despite the unusual circumstances of her pregnancy. However, he takes on certain attributes and roles that some may consider feminine. Who else would have been there to help Mary deliver Jesus? Who else would have cared for the baby when she needed to rest? These are roles that would have belonged to women at that time, had circumstances been normal. Joseph prioritized the role of his wife in salvation history. When Jesus is lost in the temple, Mary exclaims, “Your father and I have been looking for you with great anxiety” (Luke 2:48, ephasis added). Joseph never speaks in the Scriptures, but he must have shared with Mary his stress over losing Jesus and his worry about what might have happened to Jesus. This emotional response is typically attributed to women while the men are portrayed as stoically problem solving.
Joseph is not alone in defying typical masculine stereotypes. Many men throughout Scripture weep in sorrow and repentance and sing joyous songs of praise to the Lord. When Lazarus dies, Jesus weeps. Women do not have a monopoly on emotional response and none of these men would be considered weak or “unmanly” for these responses.
The Wrong Kind of Pushback
Based on the harm that these gender stereotypes have done to both men and women, they should be rejected as the only means for defining what is feminine and masculine; however, the culture has gone about eliminating these perceptions in a paradoxical and unsuccessful way.
Harry Styles and Vogue are being celebrated for softening the masculine or what some would call the “feminization of the masculine.” This is only applauded because cultural norms have decided that women wear dresses and this magazine broke those norms by putting a man in one. When there isn’t a true understanding of the masculine and feminine, then we must default back to the stereotypes.
When people who identify as transgender share their stories, many tend to begin with a desire to wear clothes of the opposite sex or to partake in activities that are typically gendered towards the opposite sex during their childhood. Some trans women share that they believed themselves to be female because they wore their mother’s clothes or played with dolls. Not to downplay the diagnosis of gender dysphoria at all, but why is it so common that a transition begins with falling into opposite gender stereotypes? Why do we acknowledge that someone is supposed to live as the opposite gender rather than dismantle the stereotype and empower the individual? Ultimately, why can’t boys play with dolls and girls with trucks? I think it’s because in a world that no longer wants to pin down a definition of gender, we don’t have any other way to make the necessary distinctions––so we fall back on gender stereotypes.
The way to solve these issues is not to get rid of sex, gender, or the differences that come with them. Men and women are neither the same nor interchangeable; our differences are real and should be both acknowledged and supported. This is the only way to achieve true complementarity, respect, and equality for both of them. In order to support these differences, we need to learn and understand what is the true feminine and the true masculine.
What is it that God has placed in us that makes us in His image and likeness, specifically as male and female? The difficulty in understanding these things is because, as a culture, we have forgotten our source, our creator. We believe ourselves to be the source of our own identity; we define ourselves. It is only the author of life who can provide the true meaning of man and woman and He has placed that meaning within us and revealed its truth to us in Genesis.
Stereotypes’ Undue Influence
Gender stereotypes have historically boxed women in and prevented gender equality in many ways. However, the current push against these stereotypes has led society to perceive that what is essentially gifted to women––the feminine genius––is a socially conditioned way of viewing women as weak and incapable of the same things as men. Women can only be strong and accomplished if they are not emotional, maternal, or sensitive; something often seen in the pressure to forgo marriage and children to focus on career advancement. This focus has created an inauthentic view of femininity that, as Fulton Sheen wrote, has made “woman a poor imitation of man.” Slapping a photo of a man wearing a dress on a magazine cover does not change anything about the essence of men and women, nor does it change the way they are perceived and treated in the world.
What will change the way women are perceived and treated in the world? An acknowledgement of the truth about men and women. Men and women are different––it’s written into our very biology and physiology. Those differences are not only real but they matter. These differences are not surface level. Men can cry at movies and enjoy shopping and women can change the tires on their cars and pursue manual or technical careers and none of these desires or actions will remove what is inherently masculine or feminine about them, that is, their inherent genius. When we can see the gifts that each gender brings to the world, we can begin to create a culture of true equality in dignity.
