Physical Difference

Physical difference—authentic and artificial—is often used as leverage to justify inequality.

I came across the following comment at This Space for Rent ("Creative License, Intellectual Stupidity") via Evil Li-brul Overlord.

I thought the comment, by someone called Amy, was particularly good, in terms of thinking critically. It discusses my current preoccupations of race, class and status—and I'm throwing in gender for good measure.

Amy's comment is one of several in a lively debate attached to This Space for Rent's blog entry discussing casting against race in a production of Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn:

"As Studs Terkels' book "Race," argued, skin color is only a superficial issue. The heart of the racial problem is status, and status and race, like race and culture, have been tied together so tightly that they remain confused. Slaves in Twain's America were viciously treated because they were slaves. Their blackness played a large foundational part because their physical differences made whites feel less guilty about dominating them, as though they were, as many argued, an entirely different species. As our most recognizable slaves were black (and most of our black neighbors were slaves), blackness and slavery became irrevocably linked as one and the same. Linguistic and cultural differences that developed in servitude would have still sprung up among whichever race was working the fields. I would argue that part of what's holding America back from really understanding—and apologizing for—the legacy and pain of slavery is that same racial identifier. A reversed-cast production of 'Huck Finn,' done right, wouldn't be about color-blindness or shock value. It would be about expanding our definition of slavery from a black issue to a human one." (Emphasis and embedded links by Sour Duck)

Just as the physical difference of dark skin allowed (and continues to allow) justification of non-equal status, so, too, is the physical difference of women (from men) used to justify limiting women's rights and freedoms.

When artificial differences between genders is de-emphasized, injustice is thrown into sharp relief. Kathleen Trigiani states that "masculinity and femininity are about power. Difference is society's smokescreen". It is a smokescreen, and it is packaged and marketed as the most alluring and seductive smokescreen that ever was.

That's why changes in clothing and other aspects of appearance are important for women in terms of being seen as equal. In the case of less restrictive clothing, there are very real, practical improvements for women as well: less restrictive clothing allows for comfort and freedom of movement. The latter is a requirement for achieving a degree of physical competence. (And physical competence, especially in the context of sports, has been shown to be related to high self-esteem.)

The most recent major shift forward occured in the 1940's when wearing trousers became more acceptable. (See Rosie the Riverter and Katharine Hepburn). (Although there have been previous dress reforms, such as bloomers.)

The same goes for makeup: it is used to emphasize women's otherness. One way makeup functions is to demonstrate women's (artificial) difference. Women can then be treated not only as a different gender, but as a different species. The more there appears to be an inherent visual difference, the easier it is to hold women to different standards. And it then becomes that much easier to deny a different species rights, because they're so... well, different.

Note: Any comments on the reverse casting of Huckleberry Finn, please take to This Space for Rent.

Further reading:

• "Masculinity-Femininity: Society's Difference Dividend", by Kathleen Trigiani, Out of the Cave: Exploring Gray's Anatomy
• "Gender: Making a Caste System Into a Democracy", by Andrea Rubenstein, Official Shrub.com blog
• Rational Dress Reform History at Fashion-Era

Photos: Mark Twain and Katharine Hepburn from Wikipedia