There's an argument out there, which I'm not sure yet if I buy, that argues that, in the abstract (the most obvious form being public signs like the above), we tend to take the male, un-handicapped as the default and then everyone else is an alteration.
The reason that I ultimately don't find the argument convincing is that there isn't really a bad effect to point at. Its symbolism is disturbing, certainly, but I'd say most don't have it affect them. And we can point to other assumptons made that have very obvious effects on the populace at large. Take, for example, any predominantly white country. Because the assumption is, often innocently enough, that the "normal" thing is for straight hair (and all the things you can do with that, like braiding it, etc.), black girls tend to want to straight their hair and give it a perm. Even almost everyone I know with curly hair wants to straighten their hair. Why? Straight hair is given more attention, is often assumed to be the norm or status quo (which, in turn, makes others think that is what's supposed to be "normal"). The assumption that everyone grows up and marries the opposite sex and has babies is another example (though far less subtle because being gay or bi isn't yet accepted). Often our society assumes your straight until you say otherwise. And we can point to and track the negative consequences of such general societal assumptions. I haven't seen that so much in relation to the public signs and in accordance with biological sex (or at least nothing that I couldn't point to some other possible cause).
Maybe because it's an abstract and we understand it as such. Maybe because we tend to understand that such signs aren't meant to represent all of us, only be a(n inadequate) symbol.
Regardless, though, the end result is that we tend not to swayed by it. We could point to Trans and Intersect people but that would be more an argument having to do with the lack of representation for anyone not either male or female. That male, un-handicapped is immediately assumed to be the default body (and, in turn, that it is what is assumed to be "correct" or "normal") only overlaps at best. So, like I said, I just don't find that people are affected by this imagery.
And that's what the sign is pointing out. The original sign is in the above half of the picture. The bottom half is altered by someone to show images that would break this trend with public signs. Notice that for the first image, the Difference is being old. So that's all that is changed from the male figure. The second picture's Difference is handicapped, so that's all that's changed from the male body.
But what I think makes me hang on to this picture is that it does something that I don't think it even realized. The last picture goes beyond just altering the male image. If I wanted to show parentage, all I would do is add a baby, not make the man a woman.
Which, of course, highlights our societal tendency to assume that if there's a baby, it's going to be the mother who takes care of it. "The father's job is to go out and find work and support the family; not to stay at home!"
And, of course, we can easily point to subtle ways that affects our society. Fathers leaving their children to be taken care of by the woman and never coming back home? The assumption that women don't work or have careers of their own, just make babies?
I can even say, instinctually (and even when I'm looking for constants from public signs), the man holding the baby seems weird. I've been conditioned to assume that if there's a baby, it ought to be a woman holding it.
It's an interesting picture, I think.
definitely interesting!! I don't really buy the argumet either, I agree with you. I don't have acces to the alien pic, but what I always thought about aliens is that they look genederless...a tiny body, like a kid's body ith skinny arms and legs and no other features. I gree that most pictures seem to be an alteration of the one that looks like the male bathroom sign. But I think it is simply because 2 legs 2 arms and a head are the key symbols that show us it's a human; it's how we are born (most of the time). That's why we take a picture with only these features and alter it. As for the bathroom image, I think it simply looks like this because how would you symbolize a male otherwise? drawing a penis between the legs may come across offensive to some people. If we add for example a wheel chair, or a dress or would take away an arm it somes across as an alteration from the 'usual', well, baby -figure you could say, and it seems to stand for a group... A wheelchair figure in a dress for example would indicate: this is for handicapped women. It would be the same with other symbols, and 'key -images' that help us classify things as the things they are. For example if I drew a cat with long hair you wouldn't just think 'cat', you'd think 'cat with long hair'. even though many cats have long hair it's not a feauture that generally is associated with a cat. That wouldn't make my drawing less of a cat though. That's why I even see a problem with these images. I think I have seen this sign in a bus or train or something (no idea if I misinterpreted it thre too) but what i was thinkin was: "ah okay. this seat seems to be for blind people, old people, people with babies, and preganant women (there was a picture of a woman too)...but what if someome who is obese enters the bus, could I say, obese people are not listed here?"...I think they have no practical use at all. We just need certain symbols to describe certain groups...because in the end everyone is different, there could always be someone who feels excluded by a certain symbol. But that would be less people if we kept it simple ad did't make a big deal out of it. Had there been a wheelchair sign I would not get the idea that this seat is only for people in wheelchairs (that obviously wouldn't make sense either^^). The fact that it lies in our nature to make certain conclusios from the majority and that we see this as the 'norm' does have negative effects, yes. And it is nice to show that people are differet, just as a remider, like e.g. the man with the baby. Society still needs it...perhaps how we choose our symbols is a good example to highlight how we 'think'(well we do not conciously think about it whe we identify ad item, do we?), but I wouldn't go as far s saying these signs are discrminating, and I don't think it puts unhadicapped maes i a btter position. It's a way of 'thinking' that we also need to have orentation in this world.
Comments (3)
keep the bus-seats free for people whose ability to move / stand is impaired?
@under_the_carpet - Heh, almost.
There's an argument out there, which I'm not sure yet if I buy, that argues that, in the abstract (the most obvious form being public signs like the above), we tend to take the male, un-handicapped as the default and then everyone else is an alteration.
For example, the most common bathroom sign that I tend to see is http://www.jaimetreadwell.com/Restroom-01.jpg. You have a male and then you take the same male body and add a dress to it for female. Another sign a person might use to aid this argument is http://www.nuacco.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/24186312_bee6c28005.jpg; the alien doesn't even have a different body, just the male body with an alien head. Of course, you could easily argue back that those images are very standard for bathroom signs so even the alien can be explained by the fact they were probably just using the usual figures for bathrooms. This argument falls apart however when we consider the handicapped sign: http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/209425/209425,1230913895,19/stock-vector-vector-handicap-sign-22676407.jpg. Again the male body, the only difference this time being in a wheel chair.
The reason that I ultimately don't find the argument convincing is that there isn't really a bad effect to point at. Its symbolism is disturbing, certainly, but I'd say most don't have it affect them. And we can point to other assumptons made that have very obvious effects on the populace at large. Take, for example, any predominantly white country. Because the assumption is, often innocently enough, that the "normal" thing is for straight hair (and all the things you can do with that, like braiding it, etc.), black girls tend to want to straight their hair and give it a perm. Even almost everyone I know with curly hair wants to straighten their hair. Why? Straight hair is given more attention, is often assumed to be the norm or status quo (which, in turn, makes others think that is what's supposed to be "normal"). The assumption that everyone grows up and marries the opposite sex and has babies is another example (though far less subtle because being gay or bi isn't yet accepted). Often our society assumes your straight until you say otherwise. And we can point to and track the negative consequences of such general societal assumptions. I haven't seen that so much in relation to the public signs and in accordance with biological sex (or at least nothing that I couldn't point to some other possible cause).
Maybe because it's an abstract and we understand it as such. Maybe because we tend to understand that such signs aren't meant to represent all of us, only be a(n inadequate) symbol.
Regardless, though, the end result is that we tend not to swayed by it. We could point to Trans and Intersect people but that would be more an argument having to do with the lack of representation for anyone not either male or female. That male, un-handicapped is immediately assumed to be the default body (and, in turn, that it is what is assumed to be "correct" or "normal") only overlaps at best. So, like I said, I just don't find that people are affected by this imagery.
And that's what the sign is pointing out. The original sign is in the above half of the picture. The bottom half is altered by someone to show images that would break this trend with public signs. Notice that for the first image, the Difference is being old. So that's all that is changed from the male figure. The second picture's Difference is handicapped, so that's all that's changed from the male body.
But what I think makes me hang on to this picture is that it does something that I don't think it even realized. The last picture goes beyond just altering the male image. If I wanted to show parentage, all I would do is add a baby, not make the man a woman.
Which, of course, highlights our societal tendency to assume that if there's a baby, it's going to be the mother who takes care of it. "The father's job is to go out and find work and support the family; not to stay at home!"
And, of course, we can easily point to subtle ways that affects our society. Fathers leaving their children to be taken care of by the woman and never coming back home? The assumption that women don't work or have careers of their own, just make babies?
I can even say, instinctually (and even when I'm looking for constants from public signs), the man holding the baby seems weird. I've been conditioned to assume that if there's a baby, it ought to be a woman holding it.
It's an interesting picture, I think.
definitely interesting!! I don't really buy the argumet either, I agree with you. I don't have acces to the alien pic, but what I always thought about aliens is that they look genederless...a tiny body, like a kid's body ith skinny arms and legs and no other features. I gree that most pictures seem to be an alteration of the one that looks like the male bathroom sign. But I think it is simply because 2 legs 2 arms and a head are the key symbols that show us it's a human; it's how we are born (most of the time). That's why we take a picture with only these features and alter it. As for the bathroom image, I think it simply looks like this because how would you symbolize a male otherwise? drawing a penis between the legs may come across offensive to some people. If we add for example a wheel chair, or a dress or would take away an arm it somes across as an alteration from the 'usual', well, baby -figure you could say, and it seems to stand for a group... A wheelchair figure in a dress for example would indicate: this is for handicapped women. It would be the same with other symbols, and 'key -images' that help us classify things as the things they are. For example if I drew a cat with long hair you wouldn't just think 'cat', you'd think 'cat with long hair'. even though many cats have long hair it's not a feauture that generally is associated with a cat. That wouldn't make my drawing less of a cat though. That's why I even see a problem with these images. I think I have seen this sign in a bus or train or something (no idea if I misinterpreted it thre too) but what i was thinkin was: "ah okay. this seat seems to be for blind people, old people, people with babies, and preganant women (there was a picture of a woman too)...but what if someome who is obese enters the bus, could I say, obese people are not listed here?"...I think they have no practical use at all. We just need certain symbols to describe certain groups...because in the end everyone is different, there could always be someone who feels excluded by a certain symbol. But that would be less people if we kept it simple ad did't make a big deal out of it. Had there been a wheelchair sign I would not get the idea that this seat is only for people in wheelchairs (that obviously wouldn't make sense either^^). The fact that it lies in our nature to make certain conclusios from the majority and that we see this as the 'norm' does have negative effects, yes. And it is nice to show that people are differet, just as a remider, like e.g. the man with the baby. Society still needs it...perhaps how we choose our symbols is a good example to highlight how we 'think'(well we do not conciously think about it whe we identify ad item, do we?), but I wouldn't go as far s saying these signs are discrminating, and I don't think it puts unhadicapped maes i a btter position. It's a way of 'thinking' that we also need to have orentation in this world.
Comments are closed.