Gender Smells

The other day, I was talking to some corker friends. We were talking about different scents of different things (we work in the food catering business). Eventually, we ended up on the topic of perfumes and colognes. I shared that I got an cologne sample in the mail as a complimentary gift after I placed an order. "It smells so good, but I don't have anyone to give it to! I'm going to spray it on an oversized sweatshirt and wear it myself. People will think it's my boyfriend's." My opinionated coworker expressed how creepy and absurd he found my ingenius idea. He proceeded to tell me I neede to just get a boyfriend if I like men's colognes so much.
   This took my mind on an interesting journey. One of the first questions that came to mind was "What's wrong with me? Why do I prefer some colognes over many selections of perfumes?" As a result of my confusion, I did some informal research. I asked some other girlfriends of mine and discovered I was not alone. Is this a coincidence? Is it a marketing technique supported by society? Why do men's cologne advertisements appeal to females or promise success with the ladies if men wear a certain cologne? Furthermore, why are so many female fragrances based around food, while many male colognes are woodsy and outdoors? Is this a ploy to make women smell like they've been cooking? Who's to say men like to be/ smell like the outdoors?
   In Judith Lorber's article "Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender" she states the following: "In the social construction of gender, it does not matter what men and women actually do; it does not even matter if they do exactly the same thing. The social institution of gender insists only that what they do is perceived as different." So do scents fall under this category? Do men and women have to smell differently simply to differentiate between genders? What would happen if we all simply selected our preferred fragrances based on what we like, as opposed to the gender to which they are assigned?

Kink in the Knight's Armor?

One of my best friends recently got engaged! I was extremely happy for the both of them. I decided we could all use some social time before the wedding planning whirlwind commenced, so we all sat back to play games. We decided on The Battle of the Sexes. After quite a few rounds my girlfriend threw her hands up at her new fiance and yelled "How do you know all these things?!" His ingenious response was "Babe I'm a guy. I'm just smart like that." I gave him the biggest "surely you came from Jupiter" look while my dear friend responded with "Ya you're right. That's why I'm marrying you, because you'll take good care of me!" I had two responses warring with each other: full on puke or smack some sense into my friend.

Why is it that women are satisfied with sitting back and letting men take care of them. Everyone wants to feel a sense of security, and we females always want to be the damsel in distress. I get that. I'll even fess up to it myself. But why ladies? Wake up! There aren't enough strong males to go around rescuing us constantly. We've all got better and more important things to do. Has this partiality towards being cared for resulted in our comatose state that keeps us from being capable of caring for ourselves?

In Mary Wollstonecraft's "Vindication on the Rights of Woman," she argues the following: "Men endeavor to sink us still lower, merely to render us alluring objects for a moment; and women, intoxicated by the adoration which men, under the influence of their senses, pay them, do not seek to obtain a durable interest in their hearts, or to become the friends of the fellow creatures who find amusement in their society." Need I say more? Instead of women pursuing meaningful things that could help us to truly flourish in life, we have become entranced by the ooey gooey mush men seem content to drown us in. After the romance dies, what are we left with? Would women feel so weak and stripped of power after breakups if we feed our hungry human states with intellect and other meaningful food in addition to the adorations of our counterparts?

Fit for Marriage

Yesterday, I had an interesting conversation with a friend. We have multiple friends who have gotten married this past year, and we were discussing how crazy it would be to get married so young. Following the typical discussion about the ideal guy, my friend made shared an alarming thought: "I am not suited for marriage! I hate to cook, and I don't naturally love children. I would be a terrible wife!"

This thought unnerved me for many reasons. It was upsetting to me that my friend, who has many strengths she would bring to a relationship, feels unfit for matrimony because she doesn't fit society's views of a good wife. There is still in existence this mindset of old that in order to be a good wife you have to love children, be an amazing cook and extreme multi-tasker, and be the perfect little home maker. Don't get me wrong! There is nothing wrong with being any of these, but there are completely suitable alternatives as well! I know many woman whose husbands do the cooking for the household and enjoy it. In today's economy, it is quite uncommon for there to only be one worker in the family. Many wives have joined their husbands in the workforce. Is there any law that says a man can't clean? I know many bachelors who keep an extremely clean home. Why should that mentality change when they obtain a wife?

It is so engraved in American society's mentality that an ideal wife stays home and keeps a good house. Let's get real. There is much more to a woman than her cleaning abilities and men are surely capable of more than bringing home the bacon. What would result from both genders stepping up and out of their stereotypical roles in a relationship?

Women draft! War not football.

As America has been at war since 2001, this country has become more familiar with the concept of women joining the armed forces. This once foreign idea has gathered a ton of support and promotion. As our soldiers are returning home, we are celebrating the women who have joined men in the ranks of becoming heroes. Women have proved themselves to be physically and emotionally fit alongside men in defending our country. God forbid they defend a football at the 50 yard line!

Yesterday, I was sitting and listening to a speaker. He was speaking to a group of middle school and high school kids, trying to get the point across of justice verses fairness. In his attempt to get his point across, he expressed that it wouldn't be fair for a housewife mother of four to be in the first draft on an elite football team. He then proceeded to joke that she had no right to even be picked first for touch football.

My inner feminist kicked in and I became outraged that he had the gull to make such a statement. After all, the housewife in question, happened to be quite athletic and in shape. On top of that, she possessed more muscle than this male speaker and could easily take him down in an arm wrestling match. So just where did he get off saying she had no right to be a first pick in a sports game? Then it dawned on me. Women are allowed to fight alongside men for the purpose of protecting what they love, but they still can't participate in all of what they love: such as professional football. It is true that the sport is physically taxing, but from where did this idea that woman can't play football originate?

In American society, children are raised so that little girls play with dolls and dress up while boys play with trucks, blocks, and wrestle. As they age, the girls and boys are expected to stick to these regimes. So essentially, our parents all take part in sculpting our "gendered activities" simply through which toys they place in our rooms as we are children. Society's concept that people must adhere to these early-developed approved activities is what keeps anyone from wondering why females cannot engage in "male activities" and males can't engage in "female activities." Early on, it is engraved in our minds that men shouldn't like to cook or clean and woman can't excel in touch football. It is ideas and educations such as these that led the speaker to  feel able to make such a shallow comment. Furthermore, by him making this comment, he was planting ideas into the thoughts of his young audience, further sculpting the boundaries in which society has placed us in. How would he have reacted if someone posed to him the question, "Why is it that women can defend our country alongside men, but you don't think they can run with a ball?"

What gender is neon?

We all know the colors that are associated with each gender. Pink is for girls, blue is for boys, and yellow is neutral. Personally, these assigned colors have always raised a certain level of annoyance. I am a girl who loves blue and hates pink. What am I to do?

Apparently, my frustrations are shared with others. I was at the mall the other day looking at purses. I came across a mother and her young son that seemed to be at about the age of six or seven. The boy, in an effort to give his mom fashion advice, picked up a neon green purse and held it up proudly. "Mommy! Get this one! It's perfect!" The mother looked at her son knowingly and said, "No sweetie, that one isn't for me."
The young boy saw a completely convenient solution to the problem, for surely they couldn't pass up this purse! "Well can I get it? It's so pretty!"
Mother: "Um no. Boys don't get purses."
Boy: "Why not? I like this one!"
Mother: "They just don't! And they don't wear neon green."
Boy: "Why? It's green! I want it!"
At this point the mother looked fearfully at me. I shrugged and walked away. That was her battle after all.

But this little encounter made me wonder. Can boys wear neon colors? Why are these exciting bright colors supposedly reserved for the female gender? What would my response be to a male walking down the street in neon? I'm going to be honest. My first thought would be, "He must be gay." I am completely ashamed of this initial thought that it seems society has engraved into my thinking. Males should not have to be stuck with the color spectrum of dull and boring. They have every right to embrace their vibrant side and wear whatever color they desire without us making assumptions about their gender or sexual preferences. After all, it is simply a color.

Where do these assumptions come from? The only answer I have for you is society. Hallmark makes blue balloons for boys and pink balloons for girls. Naturally now, boys cannot wear pink, unless they are trying to embrace the female gender of course! How absurd is this way of thinking? From the time we are born, our gender identities are shaped based simply on the colors in which we are dressed.