Butler believes that gender is a construct without a solid essence and only exists in performance. Gender is “performative” not because it’s on top of something- without performance there can’t be gender at all. I am analyzing how gender is represented and segregated within the retail experience and the strong attachment to the binary genders of male and female embedded within retail so heavily. I will observe how gender reversal has lead to contradictory social norms.

‘Topshop’ and ‘Topman’ are examples of gender segregation within retail, as discussed in Task 4 ‘Are men from Mars?’ the brand is employing the cultural expectations of the binary genders masculinity and femininity. However, women can still be feminine in masculine attire although men cannot be masculine in feminine attire. This is because of a power imbalance. Connell (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005) discusses hegemonic masculinity in terms of the ‘ideal masculine man’ being as far removed as possible from anything female’.

Butlers understanding that our clothes are ‘props’ in our performance of gender is so clearly emphasized in the brand being discussed: The feminine clothes such as dresses only available in the ‘women’s area’ promotes a gender ideal of what it is to be a heteronormative women in our western culture. Such clothing worn by a ‘Man’ would be considered highly inappropriate and un-masculine, this is because it is in the ‘women’s area’ and unavailable to ‘men’ and has traditionally always been feminine attire. When observing the ‘male area’ however it becomes harder to notice clothing unacceptable for women and this is mostly down to the contradictory standards our society presents, where it is uncommon, even shameful for a man to wear female attire it is perfectly normal for a ‘woman’ to wear male attire, even considered sexually attractive in some instances. Women wearing male attire have been ‘the norm’ since the world wars and have increased in fashion.

Linking back to butlers belief our ‘costumes’ help us perform our gender it is clear that from a clothing perspective females have more freedom to be a feminine woman wearing masculine clothing and therefore still performing their gender whereas males would struggle vice versa down to our societal beliefs and norms. ‘New Man’ for example as an ideal personified by the likes of David Beckham presents a softer more effeminate form of masculinity, nevertheless remaining within social norms. Granted the ‘norms’ have shifted to allow the feminization of masculinity but with regards to clothing- minuscule movements, allowing masculine ‘costumes’ to remain a fairly fixed state. Men ergo segregated from the freedom of their female counterparts.

With Kilbourne (Albertazzi & Cobley 2010) claiming ‘women are expected to meet standards of physical perfection that only a mannequin can achieve’ and the subsequent sexualizing of ‘female’ mannequins it is interesting to observe the representation of women and that of men through the mannequin. Firstly, referring back to Kilbourne: the mannequin of today being a size 10 whereas the average UK size is 16, leading to a mis-representation of the female body size.

Furthermore, when comparing the male and female mannequin there are noticeable differences, which produce said ‘standards’ Kilbourne refers too: Female Mannequins are placed in very obviously sexual positions emphasizing the ‘physical perfection’ of the mannequin, males however are not positioned sexually in the slightest; they maintain a casual pose or standing upright and stiff which one would tend to associate with power and status. That being said even the male Mannequins do not represent the average UK body size of males with the average waist of a British man being over two inches larger than that of the average British mannequin, although that is not nearly comparable to the female counterpart it is worth note that the bulk of male mannequins have six packs whereas less than 10% of the population do.

The idea of muscles conveying the beauty of a man is tremendously heteronormative, in fact Grogan (Grogan 2007) claims ‘visible muscle are not usually considered gender appropriate for women’. Culturally our ideals of beauty consist of the ‘female form is soft and rounded’ (Wykes 2005), which match up to the unachievable sizes of mannequins. Mulveys theory of Male gaze is prevalent with retail mannequins; the sexual positioning and size of the female mannequin representing what society considers sexy as well as the shape and emphasis on muscle of the male mannequins equally detailing social expectation through male gaze.

Dan Laughey’s (2007) claims ‘new man is the subject to the female gaze in much the same way that Mulvey theorizes women are subjects of the male gaze’ seems in accordance with our culture as a whole. Men are increasingly sexualized and objectified- but not on an even playing field to women since the mass media is predominantly from a male gaze perspective. The objectification of men for example in adverts; Armani underwear collection with Calvin Harris where gender reversals have lead to an objectification of the masculine body, specifically that of the ‘new man’ as a prime example. Not only do we have the eroticized and objectified male body in adverts as evidenced within retail the ideals have spread from a TV fantasy to real life goals and expectations. Consequently with retails representation of the binary genders an appropriate review would be that both men and women are expected to meet standards of physical perfection that only a mannequin can achieve.

Moving away from the physical segregation of the binary genders clothing options within the retail stores themselves there are representations and segregation of the two genders with the branding of said stores. Furthermore they cater only those who conform to heteronormativity, hence the partitioning of the stores for the binary genders only. Butler’s Compulsive heteronormativity can be applied here; our culture and expectations shape individuals to conform to their gender roles and sexuality, anything other than the ‘norm’ of heterosexuality for example is not natural. Pascoe’s (Sex and Society 2014) observation “The definition of masculinity entails displaying power, competence, a lack of emotions, heterosexuality, and dominance.” Reflects the rigidity of our heteronormative culture.

Compulsive heteronormativity therefore argues against Simone De Beauvoir’s (De Beauvoir 2011) ‘one is not born but rather becomes women’. Observing ‘Burton’ and ‘Dorothy Perkins’, both owned by the same company but catering to one of the two genders each, It is clear how stereotypes and expectations still govern our shopping habits and lifestyle. With Burtons website, the thick black logo of ‘menswear’ suggests men need confirmation of their masculinity and heteronormativity; this is a shop for men selling men’s clothes to make men look manly and straight. Contrastingly ‘Dorothy Perkins’ use of black font is thinner and softer than that of Burtons, even so it makes a large difference in how the website appears feminine and too attract women. The title- an only female name shares similarities to Burtons of confirming gender identity for their customers. One could argue Burtons use is to counter the feminization of ‘new man’, as Brian McNair’s interpretation of new man ‘is not just a feminized, but homosexualised vision of masculinity’ along the same lines are Connell’s argument. Since homosexuality is still perceived to be separate from ‘the norm’ our culture wants to highlight heterosexuality and heteronormative behavior. 

Retails heteronormative confirmation comes in the forms of representational branding and segregated stores. The trait is carried through to numerous retail stores, both online and on the high street; ‘Jacamo’s’ orange font is not too dissimilar to ‘JCB’ (a digger manufacturing firm) and therefore highlights masculinity. Their counterpart ‘Simplybe’ on the other hand has a delicate pink flowing logo, underlining feminine stereotypes and femininity.

To conclude, men and women are expected to meet standards of physical perfection that only a mannequin can achieve. From birth our heteronormative culture dictates our sex, gender is formed on the basis of our performance that is cultivated by social norms and representation. Gender representation and segregation in retail emphasize the need to perform in heterosexual fashion. The ‘New man’ is more effeminate than the older concept of masculinity and yet the ideal masculine man is far removed from femininity, creating conflicting ideals. There are contradictory social norms, which converge in retail; the attire deemed acceptable by society for one gender is also acceptable for the other but not vice versa. Men are increasingly sexualized and objectified by the media although not on an even playing field since mass media is predominantly still seen through the male gaze. Retail represents and segregates genders, (blind to genders other than the binary) according to social norms and our heteronormative culture.