a work by Ísis DaouJoana FrancenerSebastian Oft

genDereD apprOpriatiOn OF Space

interweaving gender and Space

prof. Dr. Uta Brandes

Scientific Seminar WS 2013/2014

KiSD Köln international School of Design

4th December 2013

1. introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2. the Dynamics of Binary gendered Society in Work and Domestic Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3. Fitness Studios, from Men-Only to Women-Only Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. the (non-)appropriation of gay and Lesbian Spaces by Heterosexuals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5. Final considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6. Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

genDereD apprOpriatiOn OF Space

5

1. introduction

Genderisnotapolarisedsphereoftwoantagonisticextremes:themale

andfemale,liketheoppositehalveslookingforeachotherinorderto

becomplete,likePlato’staledescribes.GenderrangesfromFeminine

toMasculine,allowingawidevarietyofdifferentroleswithinmankind.

Ourstructureconsistsofthesetwowellknownextremes:themaleand

thefemale,andalsotheothergradations.Whatspacesdothesegender

rolesown,occupyandfightfor.

Evenifweconsiderthatgendergoesbeyondthebinaryheterosexual

norm,thediscussionsevokingthesetwoisstillcitedbyusseparately

sincemaleandfemalehavelivedtogetherinassociationsincetimes

onecannotrecall.Eversincetherelationofpowerandspacehasshifted,

themostextremedifferencescameespeciallywithmoderntimes.

Thedivisionofthedomesticlifeandworkplaceareprogressionsthathave

changedverymuchwithinthelasthalfcentury.Wetakeanoverview

onwhathappenedtoappropriationofspacebymaleandfemalegenders

sincetheIndustrialRevolutionandhowdiditdeveloptoourdays.

Followingthisdiscussionwetakealookintoanexampleofwomen-only

spaceandwediscusstheroleofappropriationthatone-gender-only

plays.

Thispaperfinishesbytacklingthetopicofappropriationornon-

appropriationofgayandlesbianspacesbyheterosexuals,inanattempt

toproveshowsexualorientationinterfereswithperceptionofdifferent

gendersandhowaheterosexualmajorityperceivesspacesownedby

thesamegenderhavingadifferentsexualorientation.

6

7

2. the Dynamics of Binary gendered Society in Work and Domestic Spaces

Inoursociety,thepolarizationofmenandfemalelinguisticallyfoolsone

intobelievingtheyshareequalhalvesofaloaththatbiologydetermines

frombirthandthatsocietybringsupasconsequencesofthebiological

heritageindicatedbythe“sex”.Genderstudiesshowthatsexandgender

howeverarenotthesame,Butlerdiscoursesin“GenderTrouble”the

constructionofgenderwithinculture,whichtranscendsthehegemonic

culturaldiscoursethatliesonthebinarystructuresofmaleandfemale

conoted.Withinthishegemonicstructure,thisfirstchapterofourpaper

framesthedynamicspresentinspacewhenitcomestomaleandfemale

appropriationofspace,withbrieflookintohistory.

IfonewouldtrytodefinetheIndustrialRevolutionwithonewordthis

wouldprobablybe“stratification”.EricHobsbawmdissertsinhisbook

IndustryandEmpire:From1750tothePresentDayonhowarithmetics

wasthefundamentaltoolduringtimesoftheindustrialrevolution,his

emphasisofstudyconcernmorespecificallyGreatBritain’srevolution

in1750’s.

“Arithmetic was the fundamental tool of the Industrial Revolution. Its makers

saw it as a series of sums of addition and subtraction: the difference in cost

between cost of production and sale price, between investment and return.

For Jeremy Bentham and his followers, the most consistent champions of

this type of rationality, even morals and politics came under these simple

calculations. Happiness was the object of policy. Every man’s pleasure could

be expressed (at least in theory) as a quantity and so could his pain. Deduct

the pain from the pleasure and the net result was his happiness. Add the

happinesses of all men and deduct the unhappiness, and that government

which secured the greatest happiness of the greatest number was the best.

The accountancy of humanity would produce its debit and credit balances,

like that of business.” (Hobsbawm 1968 pp. 57)

Beyondthemacroeffectoneconomyandpolitics,therewasalsothe

impactonthemicroscale,wheretheindividualwasaffectedinallthis

objectivity.Eachpersonwasnowcalledindividual,anindividualworking

inamassivecollectivecrowdofotherindividualswhosharedthesame

challengesinthisnewstructure,butwhonowfoundthemselvesalonein

thissegmentedmarket.TheGuilddoesnotexistanymoretobeshared

8

theproblemsandjoysadventedfromthewholeproduction,thisisjust

oneofthedifferencesamongmanythatcamewiththestratification

oflifethattheIndustrialRevolutionbroughtoverthe18thcentury.

Theriseofthebourgeoisie,theproletariat,thearistocracy,manywerethe

division.Withinittherewasalsothedivisionofthedomesticandandthe

workspace.Theprivatepropertygrantedmenandwomenthenotion

ofadomesticplacethatisseparatefromtheworkingspace.Nowhow

didthesegmentationofworkanddomesticspacetookitscourseinto

divisionbymaleandfemalegender?LindaMcDowellhassomeinsights

concerningthefemalepredominanceinthehomespace:

“The division of home from work that developed in industrial societies

in the West in the nineteenth century, and women‘s seclusion in the former

sphere, was never complete, however – over a third of all women were

involved in some form of waged labour in Britain for the hundred years

between 1850 and 1950. But during the nineteenth century, women were

increasingly excluded from the better-paying industrial occupations, as

men recognized the dangers of competition from lower-paid female labour.

It is also undeniable that appalling conditions and high child mortality

among the offspring of wage-earning women led philanthropists to support

claims that women should not be permitted in certain jobs (C. Hall 1992).

It is important to remember, too, that for working-class women the

domestic work needed to ensure that their families had anything

approaching a reasonable standard of living, and that their menfolk went

to work each day fed and clothed, was hard and time-consuming. [...]

The ideology that ‚women‘s place was in the home‘, however, became

dominant across all the social classes in Britain in the nineteenth century

and exercised a vital hold on the lives and minds of all women. It meant that

for working-class women who went ‚out to work‘, it was still their lot in life

to do the housework as well.“ (McDowell and Massey 1984)

Thefemalespacewasactuallyneverreallyhers,sincethe“sharedlot”as

McDowelldiscusses,wasaspaceoflabor,aswellasthetextilefactories

shehadtoworkduringtheday.Herdesignatedspaceintheworldwas

aplacewhereshewasexpectedtomakecomfortableroomformenwho

wouldcomebacktotheir“nest”attheendoftheday.

AsVirginiaWoolfreasonsonher1928essay“ARoomofOne’sOwn”,that

womenhadn’tproducedasmanygreatandfamousliteraryworkasmen

wasbecausetheyweredeniedthesameopportunitiesaffordedtheirmale

counterpants.Woolfarguesthatwomenneededaroomoftheirownin

9

aworldthatwaspredominantlymale,sotheycouldbealoneandconnect

themselveswiththeirtrueidentity.

Thisissuewasneveraddresseduntilrecentcontemporaryyears.

Theurgesofawomantolookafterherownneedsgotneglectedwithin

asocialstructurethatvaluedthecollectivewell-beingandtheoutside

paidwork,donebymen,morethantheonedidatthehouse–although

manywomenoftheproletariatalsoworkedinfactories.

WealthyfamiliesduringVictorianErahadtheluxuryofmanydesignated

roomsaccordingtogenderstereotypes:womenhadsewing,drawing

andtearooms,whilemenhadbilliards,smokingandtrophyrooms.

OneparticularlyinterestingandexclusivemaleroomintheseVictorian

houseswasthe“growlingroom”,aplacetomenbealoneand“growl”

wheninabadmood.Interestingenough,asBeauvoiralreadypointedout

intheTheSecondSex,womenareusuallytheonestobeaccused

ofthinkingwiththeirhormones.

Womenhavejoinedotheractivitiesoutsidethedomesticspace,specially

whenitcametothelesswealthylayersofsociety,butapartfromthe

WorldWarsIandII,womenhaveonlyhadtoactuallyjointhework

marketplacesignificantlyinthe1970’s:

“it was not until the significant rise of service sector employment associated

with industrial restructuring in the early 1970s that the ideology of

domesticity was seriously challenged. In the interwar and postwar periods,

housework was established even more securely as a woman‘s lot in life.

Domestic science was invented as a school and then a college subject, for

example, and taught, in the main, only to girls. Domestic work in the home

was presented, especially by the growing professionalized advertising

industry, as a rational and systematic set of tasks requiring specialized

instruments and other goods”. (McDowell 1999, pp. 79)

AsJudithButlerdiscussesin“GenderTrouble”,tobesexedis“particular”,

itis“relative”,andcanonlybethefemalesex,sincebeing“male”isnot

beingasex,becausemalesaretheuniversalwithinthissystem.Aswewill

bringagainfurtherinthediscussion,themanistheunbodied,essential

element.Ifwetakethataffirmative,wehavetoaskourselves,howdid

thisessentialdealwiththeascensionoftheobjectedone,thefemale

beginningtotransitinhisterritory-the“outside”world?Thenextsection

isaninsightofhowisterritorymarkedandorganisedoncewomen

trespassedtheworkingareathatbelongedtomenbefore.

1 0

power relations in the workplace: men behind closed doors, women on open floor

Thereisaformofstrengtheningthehierarchyinworkspacesthatdoes

notinvolveabstractsalaryrankingsoroccupationnames:thespatial

arrangements.DaphneSpaindevelopedinher1992book“Gendered

Space”theideaofhowtheofficesstructuresreinforcethestatus

distinctions,mainlybytheroleofmenasmanagersbehindcloseddoors

andwomenassecretariesinopen-floorjobs.Evenfurther,Spainanalyses

theconcentrationofwomeninteaching,nursingandsecretarialwork–

thereisacommonfactorbetweenthosespecificoccupationsthatkeeps

women’sinteractionsstrictlywithintheirowngroup;thespacecontext

ofthesejobscaneasilyfacilitatethistypeofsegregation.

“Aside from being concentrated in occupations that bring them primarily

into contact with other women, women are also concentrated spatially in

jobs that limit their access to knowledge. The work of elementary school

teachers, for example, brings them into daily contact with children, but with

few other adults. When not dealing with patients, nurses spend their time

in a lounge separate from the doctors’ lounge. Nursing and teaching share

common spatial characteristics with the third major ‘women’s job’—that

of secretary.” (Spain, 1992)

Thoughthedataoftheconcentrationofwomeninthoseprofessionsfor

our“2013reality”iscertainlyoutdated,wecanstillobservethisspatial

structuresofpowerinmanyofficestoday.Concerningtheseoffices,Spain

explainsthattheideaofphysicalsegregationbetweenmanagersorother

high-hierarchypositionsandsecretariesalsoimplieslesspropagation

ofknowledgetowardsthelow-hierarchygroupandlesssignificant

exchangeofcontactbetweenthoseparts.Thishelpscreatingavery

limitedworkplacesystemwherenoalterationofpositionsorno

hierarchyrisesarepossible,atleastfromthepartofthegroupinvolving

mostwomen.Spaingoesonclarifyingtheconceptofvisiposureand

itsimportancewithintheintricatepowerrelationshipsstagedinthe

workplace:

“In addition to giving subordinates an opportunity to learn from the boss,

spatial proximity provides opportunities for subordinates to be seen by

the boss. This opportunity has been labelled ‘visiposure’ by the author of

Routes to the Executive Suite (Jennings 1971, pp. 113). A combination of

‘visibility’ and ‘exposure,’ visiposure refers to the opportunity to ‘see and

1 1

be seen by the right people’ (Jennings 1971, pp. 113). Jennings counsels the

rising executive that ‘the abilities to see and copy those who can influence

his career and to keep himself in view of those who might promote him

are all-important to success.’ The ultimate form of visiposure is for the

subordinate’s manager to be seen by the right managers as well. Such ‘serial

visiposure’ is the ‘sine qua non of fast upward mobility’ and is facilitated by

face-to-face interaction among several levels of managers and subordinates

(Jennings 1971, pp. 113–14).”

Intheclassicbusinessworld,there’snodubietyabouttheImportance

ofphysicalproximitytoachievingpowerwithinanorganization.Butmany

arethefactorsthathelpdetachingwomenfromthespheresofpower:

whenconcentratedtogetherinoneplace(thesecretarial‘pool’structure):

“that removes them from observation of and/or input into the decision-

making processes of the organization. Those decisions occur behind the

‘closed doors’ of the managers’ offices. Second, paradoxically, is the very

public nature of the space in which secretaries work. The lack of privacy,

repeated interruptions, and potential for surveillance contribute to an

inability to turn valuable knowledge into human capital that might advance

careers or improve women’s salaries relative to men’s.” (Spain, 1992)

Thesecretariesfindthemselvesintheparadoxicalconditionofbeing

responsibleforcontrollingtheinformationflowandprocessing

knowledge,butbothoftheminrarelybeneficialwaystotheirownstatus

inacompany.Nursesandteachersapparentlysharesimilarsituations

intheirownenvironments.

Notsurprisingly,higherthestatuswithinorganizationmeansmore

privateofficethepositionowns.Butevenfurther,studiesofexecutives,

managers,technicians,andclericalemployeesshowahighcorrelation

betweenenclosureoftheworkspace(wallsanddoors)andperceptions

ofprivacy;thegreatertheprivacy,thegreaterthesatisfactionwithwork.

Employeesperceivespatialcontrolasaresourceintheworkplacethat

affectstheirjobsatisfactionandperformance(Sundstrometal.1980;

Sundstrom1986).SpainalsocitesSundstromtocontesttheargument

thatmostcomplexjobsdemandmoreprivacythanthelow-complexjobs,

andhowthiswouldthereasonwhymenaremoreempoweredbehind

closeddoors:

“In the workspaces with equivalent enclosure—private offices—

[respondents] showed different ratings of privacy, with lowest ratings by

secretaries. This could reflect social norms. Secretaries have low ranks,

1 2

and co-workers or visitors may feel free to walk unannounced into their

work-spaces. However, they may knock respectfully at the entrance of the

work-spaces of managers.... Perhaps a private office is more private when

occupied by a manager than when occupied by a secretary.” (Sundstrom

1986, pp. 191).

Inthe1960s,officedesignalreadypresenteditsattemptstochangethe

traditionalofficestructurebringingnewconcepts.TheBürolandschaft

(‘officelandscape’)andfeaturedofficeswithoutpartitionsorwalls

(Becker,1981;Pile1978),awideuseofplantsinordertodepicturethe

natureopennessandfurnitureallstructuredtogethertosuggestworking

relationships.Theoriginaldrawingsofanofficeofthisstylemayseemfor

manytodayunorganizedandchaotic,butbigcorporationsadoptedthe

systeminthosetimes,includingDuPont,EastmanKodakandFordMotor

Company(Pile1978).Thenewstyleoccurredtobealsoquiteinexpensive

and“modern-looking”,somanycompaniesadopteditinordertostay

competitiveinthemarket.Theemphasisonincreasedcommunication

andegalitarianenvironmentthoughwasnotsoextremeinitsbeliefs:the

plansalsoincludedsubtlespatialdistinctionsintomostoftheoffices,

usingfiles,plantsandscreenstocreatealsomoreprivacyforspecific

workingpositionsintheworkplace.

Buttheindividualpowerrelationshipbetweenemployerandemployee

seemtobealsoheavilyinfluencedbygender.Gallup’sannualWork

andEducationsurveyconductedapollduringAugust2013consisting

oftelephoneinterviewswitharandomsampleof2,059adults,aged18

andolder,livinginall50statesoftheUnitedStatesofAmericaandthe

DistrictofColumbia.ThequestioninconcernhasbeenaskedbyGallup

eachyearsince1953:ifyouhadtheopportunityoftakinganewjoband

couldchoosethebossgender,whatwouldyouchoose?Theresultsfor

thisyeararethefollowing:35%wouldchooseaman,23%wouldchoose

awoman,and41%wouldhavenopreferenceaboutit.

Itseemsthatthepreferenceforafemalebossishigheramongthosewho

currentlyworkforone.Feweramericansthoughsaytodaythattheywork

forawoman,andthisstructuralaspectoftheworkplaceinturnlikely

affectstheirpreferences.Eventhoughthiskindofpollbasesitselfon

apersonalandindividualopinionthatcouldbedetachedfromthegender

gapworldandevennorth-americancontext,itsaysalotaboutdifferent

people’svisionaboutapositionofpower:tomanythemalefiguremay

seemmoreappropriatetoit,asa“natural”stateofthegender.Onecan

alsoclaimtohavehadbadexperienceswithonegenderoranother,but

1 3

quitelikely,manyoftheintervieweescouldseethemanbelongingto

thepowerspotbecausetheyindeedareinthemajorityofthem,inthe

non-hypotheticalworld.Isitthenaquestionofgettingusednotonly

towomeninpositionsofpower,buttowomenindifferentprofessional

layers,fieldsofstudyandspaces.

Concerningappropriationofdifferentspaces,suchasleisureones,

wetakealookhowwomen-onlyspacesplayarolenowadays,andask

ourselvesifthatisasensibleapproachtowardsgender.

Osram Offices , munich , Walter henn , 1963 : example Of BürOlandschaft layOut

1 5

3. Fitness Studios, from Men-Only to Women-Only Spaces

Thebodyworksasaborderbetweenoneselfandtheother.Ifone

mentionsthebody,onehasalsotorefertothematerialshiftwithinthe

latestyearsofthetwentieth-centuryintheindustrialcountries.Thebody

isthecenterofconcernwhenitcomestoworkandleisure,concerning

theindividualwithinsociety.“Itisthemotorofeconomicdevelopment,

andasourceofindividualpleasureandpain.”(MacDowell,1999,pp.37).

Bodyisinsertedintimeandspace,ElizabethGroszunderlinesthe

differentformsofcorporealexertioninourspatiality,forexamplethe

verticalityofthecityopposedtothehorizontalityofthelandscape.

Affectingourorientation,theterrainwherelifeisstagedalsoinfluences

thephysicalityofthebody:muscles,bodystructure,nutritionalcontext

andwhatsustainsus.Referringbacktotherelationalchangehumanity

hasexperiencedaftertheindustrialrevolutionwithitsbody,onemust

alsotakeintoconsiderationthesegmentationnotonlyofwork,butof

therelationandacknowledgementofthebodyasaseparateelement

thatoughttobeexercised.Theriseofsportscenters,clubswaspart

ofthesegmentationthatwashappeninginlargescalewhenitcame

tothestratificationofwork.

Inanevenmoreadvancedsense,thecityandurbanenvironmentas

Groszalsocites,isaplacewherethebodyiscultissaturated,byimages,

representationalsystemsfrommassmediasuchasadvertisement,

orpossibilitiesoftransformationthatareconductedbyreinterpretation

ofthebodybyart.Inthisurbancontextthecultureofsportinaseparate

environmentarouse,placeswheremachinesareavailabletoexercise

specificpartsofthebody,thecontinuationofthestratificationoflife

andworktakesoverespeciallyduringthe1960’sand1970’s,when

bodybuildingbecomeverypopular.Thesportsclubdoesnotonlyoffer

weight-liftingandsportsingeneral,thegymsappear,smallerplaces

wherepeoplegotoexercise,walkontreadmillswithoutenvironmental

disturbancesandabsolutecontrolofeverymusclemoved,every

heartbeatcounted.

“In turn, the body (as cultural product) transforms, reinscribes the

urban landscape according to its changing (demographic, economic and

1 6

psychological) needs, extending the limits of the city, of the sub-urban, ever

towards the countryside which borders it.” (Grosz, 1992, pp. 248-9)

MacDowellcitesajourneyofawomaninthepublictransportasto

exemplifyhowwomenareactuallyexcusingthemselvesintooccupying

lessspacethanmen,whoactuallyseemtobeentitledtooccupymoreof

theavailablespace.ThatcanbealsobroughtparallelytowhatBeauvoir

suggestsaboutthedisembodimentofthemen.Amanwillnotbenoticed,

aswellasthespaceheoccupies,sincehebaresanon-corporealidentity,

butaswellapermeableone.ThatwouldsoundasthoughasBourdieu

wouldcontradictthatwhenheaffirmsthat:menarepresenceinspace

andwomenareinsignificance.Neverthelessthatstillmeansthatthemen

isexpectedtooccupytheplace,whereaswomenarejustoccupyinga

smallportiongrantedtothembytheoneswhopermeatetheplace,men.

Withthispanoramainmind,wouldonefindperfectlylogicaltofightfor

aspaceforwomen,whereshewillnotanymoreexcuseherselfwhenit

comestooccupyingthespace?Gymswereaspacereservedforworking

outthebody,bodybuildingandactivitiesthatwereconsideredtobe

exclusivelyformen.

Apparentlythisexclusiveleisureplaceforwomendidmakesenseback

inthe1960’swastobuildplaceswherewomenneedswouldbecentral.

Theyarealsocalledrefugees,shelterwhichrangedfrombookshops,

swimmingpools,fitnessstudios,artcentres,especiallyintheUS,Canada

andGreatBritainthesewereverypopular.Theyhadinmindaccess

andsafetyinpublic.

“There are also studies about the role of women planners and architects

and their challenge to the masculinist assumptions common in their

professions.” (Brion 1994; Greed 1991, 1994).

AsLindaMcDowellargues:don’twomen-onlyprovisionandspaces

empowerortrapwomeninaghettoofspecialneeds?Doessegregating

emphasizewomen’sinaptitudetoprotectthemselvesfromurbanlife

reinforcingtheargumentthatwomenareinneedofprotectionfromthe

roughandtumbleofurbanlife?Thisideahasnotchanged,insteadithas

spreadandturnedintoabrandingideasoldbymanywomen-onlyspaces,

amongthemwhatseemstobethemostcommonamongthemisthe

women-exclusivegym:

1 7

“Gym without the Jims. Fitness without the fanatics.

At Contours, all our studios are for women - real women. No matter what

shape you‘re in, we‘ve got a workout for you. Our small, intimate studios

are filled with easy to use equipment, so they‘re not intimidating. Plus we‘re

always at hand to help and advise you. And because we‘re small, we can

get to know you and your needs - it‘s like working out with a friend.” (Gym

without the Jims. Fitness without the fanatics. 2013)

Theyrelyonapublicthatseemstobelievethatwomenavoidgyms

becausetheydislikemenstaringandmakinginappropriatecomments.

Intheannouncementbelowitseemsthatthegyminnovatesbecause

guarantees“camaraderieamongclients”.Doesthatmeanthataplace

withmorethanonegenderdoesnotpromotethat?Doesthatnecessarily

meanthatinmixedgendergymsthereisaconstantatmosphereof

hostility,howeveronecannottellifthehostilitycomesonlybecause

menandwomenfaceanimpasseofpower,orifthewomenamongst

themselvesalsofacecompetitioninthepresenceofthemalegaze.

“Uplift is not just a place to work out – it is a place where women come

to do something great for themselves in a fun, friendly and, yes, Uplift-

ing atmosphere. We were founded on the philosophy that working out

and having an active social life are two of the key components to creating

happy, successful lives for women in New York City. Uplift is committed to

the empowerment, support and camaraderie of and among our clients.”

(Uplift: About us 2013)

“cOuntOurs” australian WeBsite On decemBer 2013

1 8

Thereisalsoacomplaintthatmentreattheweightsectionastheir

ownexclusivebodybuildingspace.Soinfaceofthisdominancethese

womenprefertoretreat,creatingasubcultureoftheirown,thanfacing

confrontationandmakingspaceinwhatseemstobethegeneralgym.

“Uplift’s ‘Fit to be Tied‘ Bridal Programs

Get ‘Fit to be Tied‘! Three versions of a one-on-one customized program in

our studio designed to get you in the best shape of your life for your big

day.“ (Uplift: Bridal Programmes 2013)

“Our fun and exciting fitness classes are truly for women of ALL shapes and

sizes to help tone their bodies as well as build their self-esteem. Watch your

self confidence and strength grow as you rediscover your power and natural

beauty.” (The Flow Experience 2013)

Asalreadymentioned,therearemanydifferentparametersconsideredin

thecomplexityofanindividual.Culturalaspectisoneofthem,howevera

personisfirstdefinedbyhergenderinstead,secondlyshewillbedefined

byhercultureandtheimplicationsthathergenderwillinflictonher.

Soonewouldthinkthatawomanhasasmuchdifficultytotransitina

gymenvironmentasanoverweightman.Thusthatwouldbeignoring

thealreadymentionedmalepresenceanditsunobjectedright

ofappropriationofspace.

“u p l ift” WeBsite On decemBer 2013

1 9

“Newly refurbished , the ladies only gym is probably one of the largest is

Hull and uses only state of the art equipment to ensure you can train to

your full potential. It is completely private from the mixed gym and male

members so you can train in a relaxing and comfortable environment.“

(The Ladies only Gym 2013)

Womenclaimtheydislikethewaymenlookatthemwhenexercising

andfeelevenmoreself-consciouswhentakingpartinsportorphysical

activitywhenmenarepresent.

Ifwomenaremoreself-consciousoftheirbehaviourwheninfrontofmen,

doesthatmeantheyarenotreallythemselveswhentheyareinfrontof

men,thereforemaybeitwouldbeagoodideatoimplementmorespaces

ofsegregation,sowomenwillfeelmorecomfortabletoactfreely?Yet

menarenotatallcompelledtoacknowledgethisdifference,enlargingthe

wallthemythofconflictaroundit.

“HATE GYMS... LOVE GYMOPHOBICS!

Gymophobics is very different from conventional Gyms and our members

achieve amazing results. Members come in all shapes and sizes and all

ages. We have teenagers with weight problems, often brought along by

their mothers, and ladies in their seventies and eighties, with every age in

between!”

(Welcome to Gymophobics 2013)

Avoidingtheconfrontationbysegregatinggender,enlargesitsgap.

“gymOphOBics” WeBsite On decemBer 2013

2 0

“But instead we’ll tell you that we are ladies only because we believe women

should be comfortable working out. Our members can jump higher, squat

lower and sweat without feeling self-conscious.”

(About Lucille Roberts 2013)

Thefitnessstudioisoneexampleamongotherstowardssegregation.

Ifwecanlearnsomethingfromsegregationwhenlookingintootherfields

suchaspolitics,wecanonlydrawassumptionsthattheyactuallyincrease

conflict.Inthissenseitwouldmakemuchmoresensetodesignagender

sensitiveplace,somewherethattakesintoconsiderationnotonlythe

hegemonicheterosexualsociety,butonethatlooksintotheneedsofthe

manydifferentgendergroupsoutthere.The“how?”questionishowever

stillopened.

Alsowhenlookingintoothersexualorientationsthanheterosexuality,

segregationinspacesisevident.Thenextparagraphwillfocusonthe

rolesexualorientationplaysinappropriationandperceptionofgendered

spaces.

“ luci l le rOBerts” WeBsite On decemBer 2013

2 1

4. the (non-)appropriation of gay and Lesbian Spaces by Heterosexuals

Eversincethesexualrevolutioninthe1960s,thedismissalof§175and

thelatestsincetheveryfirsthomosexualkissingermantelevisionin

thebeginningofthe90sinthetelenovela“Lindenstraße”,apositive

developmentintheperceptionofthethetopichomoexualityseems

totakeplace.Gayandlesbianbars,inthe60sand70s–eveninthe80s

–stillperceivedashotbedsofsin,arenowadaysasfirmlyestablishedin

modern,westerncitysasanyotherinstitutionorsight.Yet,whatdefines

themunalteredeventoday–apartfromtherainbowflagasiconof

homosexuality–is:Thereisalmostonlyhomosexualmenandwomen

inthosespaces.

Thereforethequestionofreasonarises,asbasicallyhomosexualpubs

areeventuallyspaces,whicharesoobviouslybelongingtoacertain

genderashardlyanyother.Agaybarissoevidentlymasculine-connoted

andmale-dominatedlikealesbianbarisasoclearlyfeminine-connoted

andfemale-dominatedspace.Despitetheobviousappropriationofsuch

spacesbyacertaingender,thisspaceisappearantlynotperceivedor

recognizedasaspaceownedbyorbelongingtotheirowngenderby

heterosexualindividualsoftheverysamegender–whichwouldexplain

whytherestillarealmostonlyhomosexualsinthosebars.

Resultingfromthisobservation,wepostulatethehypothesis,that

homosexual-ownedspacesarenotperceivedasmaleorfemaleowned

spacesbytheheteronormativemajorityofmenandwomenwhenit

comestoassigningthosespacestotheirowngendergroups.Inthe

assignmentofspacestodifferentgenders,itisnotonlytherespective

perceptionofgenderedidealsoffemininityandmasculinityaswellas

genderperformanceoftheindividualsowningthosespacesthatis

crucial,butforavitalpartitisalsothesexualorientationwhichdefines

theperceptionofgender.

Spacesareassignedviasexualorientationaspartofthegenderidentity

asmuchasviathegenderroleorgenderperformanceoftheownersof

theparticularspaces.Thisallowstheconclusion,thatgenderismore

thanjustmanandwomanandevenmorethanjustidealsofmasculinity

andfemininityaswellasklischéesandthatthereisaninfiniteamount

ofgenders,consistingofvariousfactors.Eventuallyalsothereasonfor

2 2

heterosexualmentonotidentifygaybarsasmalespaces,despitethe

dominanceofmenandforheterosexualwomentonotidentifylesbian

barsasfemalespacesdespitethedominanceofwomen,cantherefore

beexplained.

Thefollowinganalysiswillconsistofthreeparts,consecutivelybuilding

uponeachothertoverifyourhypothesis.Firstly,amacrosociological

viewofthetopicwillbegivenbyreferringtoJudithButler’stheoryof

genderbinaryunderthepremiseofheterosexuality.Strengtheningour

hypothesisinamicrosociologicalpointofviewwillbeMertensandhis

theoryoftheconstructionofindividualgenderidentityconsistingof

threemainfactors.

Afterhavingfoundoutthereasonsofwhyhomosexualspacesarenot

perceivedasnormativemaleorfemale-dominatedspaces,Connell’s

theoryofhegemonicmasculinityandhegemonicfemininitywillhelpto

pointoutwhichgenderisassignedtothegivenhomosexualspacebythe

majorityofmenandwomen.

a Macrosociological approach

Asconveyedinthepreviousparagraphs,ourmodernsocietyisbasedon

theprincipleofgenderbinary.Gender-researcherJudithButlerwrites

inhermagnusopus“GenderTrouble”,thatthebinaryprincipleofthe

divisionintoexclusivelymaleandexclusivelyfemaleisasocialconstruct,

thereforealsotheidealstandardsofmasculinityandfemininityare

definedbysociety–viarepetitiveprocesspatterns(Butler1991).

Thisexclusiveandplaindivisionintomaleandfemaleis,soButler,

subjugatedbythenormofheterosexuality,asonlyviathison

heterosexualitybasedgenderbinaryreprocreationandallegedlysocial

ordercanbeguaranteed.Butlercallsthisthe“MatrixofIntelligibility”

(Butler1991,P.39).Throughthedefinitionofgendersviadifferentiation

amongthemselves,thegendergapislimitedtoonlytwopossibilities–

namelymaleandfemale–andonlyonegenderrelationshipisallowed–

namelytheheterosexual(Butler1991).

Onthebasisofthistheory,twodefiningfactorscanbeidentified,

whichcouldexplain,whyhomosexual-ownedspacesarenotperceived

2 3

asbelongingtotheirowngendergroupbytheheterosexualmajority:

Homosexualityitselfasasexualorientationincontrarytoheterosexuality

asbaseofsocietyandtheexpectationsonmasculinityandfemininity

inabinarysystem,whicharelessstereotypicallymatched.

Asheterosexualityisconsideredtobetheonlypossiblesexual

orientation,homosexualpeopledonotfitintothenormativepattern

setupbysociety.Therefore,spaceswhichareespeciallyconsidered

tobehomosexuallyconnoted,suchasgayandlesbianbars,cannotbe

perceivedbytheheterosexualmajorityasspacesbelongingtotheirown

gendergroups,whichexplainsageneralconfusionwhenitcomesto

aligningthosespaceswhith„straight“spaces.

Inadditionandmoregender-specific,homosexualmenandwomendo

notfitintothenormativepatternssetupbysocietyconcerningthe

binarygenderrolesofmasculinityandfeminity,astheverybasisofitall,

heterosexuality,isnotpartofthegenderidentificationofhomosexuals.

Ifaspaceownedbypersonanotperceivedasmaleorfemale,dueto

theirsexualorientationandresultingofthat,theirnon-fittingintogender

binary,eventheowngendergroupdoesnotconsiderthosespacestobe

appropraitedbypeopleoftheirgender.

a Microsociological approach

Inamicrosocialcontext,thesameconclusionscanbedrawnwhen

referringtopsychologistWolfgangMertensandhistheoryofgender

identity.Hestatesthatthegenderidentityisbaseduponthreefactors:

Thecoregenderidentity,thegenderroleandthesexualorientation.

Thecoregenderidentitydeterminestheawarenessofanindividualover

thesex,whichisassignedgenderrolestereotypicallybythereactions

ofthedirectsocialsurrounding–inthiscasetheparents.According

toMertens,thiscoregenderidentityissoconflict-freeestablishedby

thelatesttheageoftwo,thatitalmostisirrevocableinthefurther

profressionoflife(Mertens1992,pp.24).

Thegenderroledescribesthe“additionofexpectationsontheown

behaviouraswellasthebehaviouroftheinteractionpartnerregarding

theparticulargender.”(ib.).Thedevelopmentofthegenderrolealready

2 4

happensinearlysocialisationandisdefinedviaculture-specificrulesand

normsaswellassocialexpectations.Butassocietycanbasicallyalways

changeandunderlieschange,thegenderroleis,contrarytothecore

genderidentity,flexible(ib.).

Thesexualorientationdefinesthepreferredgenderofthesexpartner.

Influencesdefiningthesexualorientationcouldnothavebeendefined

uptotoday(ib.).WhenlookingatMertens‘theoryofgenderidentityand

tryingtoapplyittohomosexualindividuals,oneneedstodifferbetween

theperspectiveofthehomosexualindividualandtheperceptionviathe

heterosexualmajority.

FollowingMertens,thecoregenderidentityisassolidforgaysand

lesbiansasitisforheterosexualmenandwomen.Agaymanalways

considershimselftobemale,alesbianwomanalwaysconsidersherself

tobefemale.Adiscrepancyinperceptionariseswhenitcomesto

applyingthegenderrole.Intheirgenderroles,homosexualstendtobe

lessmatchingtheexpectationsofsocietytowardswhatismasculine

andfeminine,referringtoButleragain,duetothemerefact,thattheir

homosexualityitselfisnotmatchingtheexpectationofmankindtobe

heterosexual.Butalsobecauseoftheirlifeexperiences,inwhichthey

wereneverabletoliveuptoexpectationsconcerningmasculinityand

femininity,astheirsexualorientationalwaysprohibitedthemfromfitting

intothesocialnormandthereforetheperceptionoftheirgenderrole

aswellcouldrarelymatchtheexpectationsofmasculinityandfemininity.

Thelatestwhenitcomestothesexualorientation,thediscrepancyis

evident.Thisleadstotheassumption,thatalsoinamicrosociological

context,thesameconclusiononwhyhomosexualownedspacesarenot

perceivedasmaleorfemale,canbedrawn:

Theirhomosexualityprohibitstheheteronormativemajorityfrom

consideringgayandlesbianownedspacestobetheirspacesaswelland

thegenderrolesofhomosexualsdonotfitintoagenderbinary,therfore

thosespacesarenotperceivedasspacesownedbymenorwomenby

theheteronormativeindividuals,whichfitintothesocialnormofwhatis

expectedfrommenandwomen.

2 5

Hegemonic Masculinity and Hegemonic Feminity

SofaritisevidentwhenreferringtoButler‘stheoryofgenderbinaryand

Mertens‘theoryofgenderidentity,thatagaybarisnotperceivedasa

male-ownedspaceandalesbianbarisnotperceivedasafemale-owned

spacebytheirowngendergroupsduetotheirhomosexualityandthe

conclusionsdrawnofoutthatwhenitcomestogenderrolesinabinary

system.Assumingthatallspacesaregendered,thequestionwhicharises

atthispointis:ofwhatgenderelse,ifnotofamaleorfemale,aregay

andlesbianbarsperceivedbytheirowngendergroups?

Inanattemptoffindingasatisfyinganswer,wearereferringtothe

sociologistRawynConnell,whodeveloppedatheoryofhomosocial

hierarchypatterns,inthiscaseofhierarchyandhegemonialstructures

withinspecificgendergroups,specificallywithinthegroupofmenand

women.

Concerningmen,Connellstatesthataspecificformofmasculinityis

determinedasmodelformasculinedominance–andthereforedefines

theidealofmasculinitywhereuponmasculinityneedstoorientate–out

ofahistoricalandculturalcontext.Furthermore,itdefinesimplicitly

theuniversalstandardofsocietalnormalityrespectivelythemasculine

dominance(Heilmann2011,pp.24).

Ourculturalandhistoricalmodeloftheidealofmasculinitywas

constructedviarepetitiveprocedures(Butler)overcenturiesand

describesasmasculine,whatonecanachievebydismissingfeminine

attributes.Sotosay:Thelessfeminine,themoremasculine.

Therefore,agayman–notfulfillingtheidealofmasculinityduetohis

sexualorientationandgenderperformance–isalwaysonalowerpoint

inthemasculinehegemonicsandoftenisnotevenperceivedas

masculine,butasfeminine.Supportingthisthesis,onecanalsorefer

tofrenchphilosopherBourdieu,whocametotheconclusion,thatdue

togenderbinary,alsosexualpracticesaredividedintothepenetrating

andthereceivingpart.Thisway,arelationshipofequivalencyemerges

betweenwomenandhomosexualmen(Bourdieu1997,pp.161).

Applyingthosetheoriestotheperceptionofspacesownedbygaymen,it

isevidentthattheyarenotperceivedasmalespacesbytheirowngender

group,but–thoughpossiblysubconsciously–asfemalespaces,whichis

whyheterosexualmendon‘tconsiderthesespacestobetheirsaswell.

2 6

Forwomen,theoryisalittledifferent.Inthiscase,hegemonicstructures

arenotsomuchbasedondominanceandevenlessonsexuality.Again,

anidealstandardofwhatfemininityissupposedtobeisdefined

throughahistoricalandculturalcontext,whichisconstantlyshifting.

Andagain,thecomplianceofthisstandardguaranteesahigherposition

inhegemonialstructures.Butwhereasinthegroupofmenthesexual

orientationplaysacrucialroleintheperceptionofmasculinityand

thereforeintherankinginhierarchicalstructures,forwomenitismore

thefulfillingofsociallyconstructedidealsoffemininityandthesocial

statusdefiningtheirplaceinthehierarchy.

Atthispoint,wearenotabletocometoasatisfyingconclusionwhen

itcomestofindingoutinwhatwayheterosexualwomenassignlesbian

spacestowhatgenderifnottheirs.Itpossiblyisnotevengenderedto

thematalloritreallyisconsideredtobeafemalespace,butinasense

offemininity,thatisnotmatchingtheiridealsofheterosexualityand

genderbinary,sothatitstopsthemfromperceivingthosespacesasalso

theirownspaces.

conclusion

Thehypothesissetup,namelythatspaces,evenifobviouslymale-or

female-ownedsuchasgayandlesbianbars,arenotperceivedasmaleor

femalespacesbytheirowngendergroupsbecauseofthefactthatsexual

orientationplaysacrucialroleinassigningspacestocertaingenderscan

beverified.Ofcoursethisisonlyashortandinsufficientattemptintrying

tostatethefollowing,butneverthelessitcanbeseenasastartingpoint

forfurtherresearcheswhichcanproveourideaofwhatgenderis.

2 7

5. Final considerations

Theperceptionofgenderismorethanjusttherecognitionofmaleor

femalegenderroles,itisdefinedbyvariousfactors,suchasgenderroles,

genderperformancesandobviouslyalsosexualorientation.Thispercep-

tionnotonlyreferstoindividualsorpersonaitself,butalsotothespaces

theyappropriateandletsuscometotheconclusion,thatgenderismore

thansimplymasculinityandfeminity,morethanjustmanandwoman

inabinaryconcept,butawholerangeandvarietyofdifferentformsof

gendersanddifferentperceptionsofrealitiesofgender.

Infuturedevelopments,wethinkthatitsimplyisaprocessofthinking

andovercominggenderedstereoty-pes,tochangetheperceptionofa

genderbinaryandalsospaceownership.Thisrequiresalotofreflection

andawareness,sothatitishardforaheteronormativemajoritytoadjust

theperceptionofmasculinityandfemininity,thereforealsoandespecially

ofwhataremaleandfemalespaces,totherealityofamorediverse

existenceingenderrolesandspecificgenderappropriatedspaces,yetwe

wishforthebest.

2 8

2 9

Bibliography

About Lucille Roberts 2013,takenfrom:

<http://www.lucilleroberts.com/womens-fitness.php>[27.11.2013]

Beauvoir, S.2010,The Second Sex,TheRandomHouseGroup,NewYork

Bourdieu, P.1997, Die männliche Herrschaft,SuhrkampVerlag,

Frankfurta.M.

Brion, M.1994,Snakes and ladders? Women and equal opportunities

in education and training for housing.InR.GilroyandR.Woods(eds),

HousingWomen,Routledge,London

Butler, J.1990,Gender Trouble,Routledge,NewYork

Franklin Becker, D.1981,Workspace: Creating Environments in

Organisations,Praeger,NewYork

Greed, C.1991,Surveying Sisters: Women in a Traditional Male Profession,

Routledge,London

Greed, C.1994,Women and Planning: Creating Gendered Realities,

Routledge,London

Grosz, E.1992,Bodies-Cities.InB.Colomina(ed.),SexualityandSpace,

PrincetonArchitecturalPress,NewYork

Gym without the Jims. Fitness without the fanatics.,takenfrom:

<http://contours.net.au/go/forwomen>[27.11.2013]

Hall, C. 1992,White, Male and Middle Class: Explorations in Feminism and

History.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Heilmann, A. 2011,Normalität auf Bewährung. Outings in der Politik und

die Konstruktion homosexueller Männlichkeit,transcriptVerlag,Bielefeld

Hobsbawm, E.1999,Industry and Empire: From 1750 to the Present Day,

TheNewPress,NewYorkJennings,E.E.1971:RoutestotheExecutive

Suite.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

McDowell, L.1999,Gender, Identity and Place: Understanding Feminist

Geographies,UniversityofMinnesotaPress

3 0

McDowell, L. and Massey, D.1984,A woman‘s place?InD.MasseyandJ.

Allen(eds),GeographyMatters!,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge

Mertens, W.1992,Entwicklung der Psychosexualität und der

Geschlechtsidentität.Band1Geburtbis4.Lebensjahr,KohlhammerVerlag,

Stuttgart

Newport, F. and Wilke, J.2013,Americans Still prefer a Male Boss. A

plurality report that a boss’ gender would make no difference,takenfrom:

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/165791/americans-prefer-male-boss.aspx>

[30.11.2013]

Pile, J.1978,Open Office Planning: A Handbook for Interior Designers and

Architects,ArchitecturalPress,London

Spain, D.1992,Gendered Spaces,UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,

ChapelHill

Sundstrom, E.1986,New Behavioral Issues in Office Design,VanNostrand

Reinhold,NewYork

Sundstrom, E., Burt, R. and Kemp, D.1980,Privacy at Work: Architectural

Correlations of Job Satisfaction and Job Performance,Academyof

ManagementJournal23.

The Flow Experience 2013,takenfrom:

<http://www.flowfitnessstudio.com/>[27.11.2013]

The Ladies only Gym 2013,takenfrom:

<http://www.bodyworld.co.uk/ladies-gym-for-fitness.html>[27.11.2013]

Uplift: About us 2013,takenfrom:

<http://upliftstudios.com/about-us>[27.11.2013]

Uplift: Bridal Programmes 2013,takenfrom:

<http://upliftstudios.com/programs/bridal-programs>[27.11.2013]

Welcome to Gymophobics 2013,takenfrom:

<http://www.gymophobics.co.uk/Welcome-to-Gymophobics>[27.11.2013]

Woolf, V.1989,A Room of One‘s Own,HarcourtBrace&Co.,NewYork