Note from the artist: The reason why there is so much hypocrisy between genders is because of the fact that they are so narrowly defined. Which is strange considering how little we seem to know about the subject.
About Justin Hubbell
Justin Hubbell is from upstate New York and has been publishing his comics since his graduation in 2010.
You can see more of his work on his website: >http://www.justinhubbell.com/
It’s not a double standard. It’s different standards of attractiveness for men and women. Hairiness is considered attractive on men but not on women. It’s not that a hirsute woman is considered unacceptable, but unattractive.
Admittedly there’s pressure to be attractive and this is felt perhaps disproportionately by women, but deviating from gender norms is probably considered more unacceptable for men than women.
Isn’t unattractive and unacceptable the same thing in our culture? Especially for women? I’ve seen guys let doors close in my face only to see the same guy rush to hold it open for a more attractive woman. We will afford men the right to show their skills in other areas, such as if he is good at sports, a great entertainer, smart, funny or a good cook. Usually, women’s attractiveness is talked about first over any other skill she may possess. Which is why media will talk about what female politicians are wearing more then the political issues they… Read more »
Guest
trey1963
9 years ago
Now draw both characters in traditionally feminine attire and note which would be seen as deficient in meeting gender norms.
Yeah, I think that would be interesting too. For sure both are equally as restrictive.
Guest
Jonathan G
9 years ago
Because humans as a species display very minimal sexual dimorphism, and all societies throughout history have invented largely-arbitrary gender signals as a vehicle of identity and sexual expression?
Humans display very minimal sexual dismorphism? Maybe you could explain this a little more Jonathan. I think even millions of years ago, when we didn’t have all the beauty trends we have now, men and women could still be attractive men and women and enjoyed for their physical differences, and they would avidly see their sexual differences without the age of over extended body parts. Millions of years ago, women didn’t need to have breast implants, starve themselves and get waxed to be considered attractive women – I think men back then even liked pubic hair because it singled that… Read more »
Certainly, I’d be happy to explain. Humans display minimal sexual dimorphism in that, aside from genitalia, our secondary sexual characteristics are variations on the same body forms: Males are generally larger than females, but the difference between mean body masses is only about 15%, meaning that there are many women more massive than the average man, and many men less massive than the average woman. It’s similar for height. Females tend to have wider hips, but this trait is not universal. They tend to have breasts, but these are not always prominent. Males tend to have greater upper body strength,… Read more »
It’s not a double standard. It’s different standards of attractiveness for men and women. Hairiness is considered attractive on men but not on women. It’s not that a hirsute woman is considered unacceptable, but unattractive.
Admittedly there’s pressure to be attractive and this is felt perhaps disproportionately by women, but deviating from gender norms is probably considered more unacceptable for men than women.
“perhaps” LOL
Isn’t unattractive and unacceptable the same thing in our culture? Especially for women? I’ve seen guys let doors close in my face only to see the same guy rush to hold it open for a more attractive woman. We will afford men the right to show their skills in other areas, such as if he is good at sports, a great entertainer, smart, funny or a good cook. Usually, women’s attractiveness is talked about first over any other skill she may possess. Which is why media will talk about what female politicians are wearing more then the political issues they… Read more »
Now draw both characters in traditionally feminine attire and note which would be seen as deficient in meeting gender norms.
Yeah, I think that would be interesting too. For sure both are equally as restrictive.
Because humans as a species display very minimal sexual dimorphism, and all societies throughout history have invented largely-arbitrary gender signals as a vehicle of identity and sexual expression?
If by “societies” you mean “patriarchies?”
Please explain.
Humans display very minimal sexual dismorphism? Maybe you could explain this a little more Jonathan. I think even millions of years ago, when we didn’t have all the beauty trends we have now, men and women could still be attractive men and women and enjoyed for their physical differences, and they would avidly see their sexual differences without the age of over extended body parts. Millions of years ago, women didn’t need to have breast implants, starve themselves and get waxed to be considered attractive women – I think men back then even liked pubic hair because it singled that… Read more »
Certainly, I’d be happy to explain. Humans display minimal sexual dimorphism in that, aside from genitalia, our secondary sexual characteristics are variations on the same body forms: Males are generally larger than females, but the difference between mean body masses is only about 15%, meaning that there are many women more massive than the average man, and many men less massive than the average woman. It’s similar for height. Females tend to have wider hips, but this trait is not universal. They tend to have breasts, but these are not always prominent. Males tend to have greater upper body strength,… Read more »