Gender and Material Environment

I thought that this week’s reading on gender and the material environment by Van Oost (2005) was especially interesting because over the weekend a friend of mine showed me a “manly” lip balm that he had just ordered from the internet. This lip balm is entitled “Chap Fix +” and is advertised as specifically for men. Here is the link for anyone who wants to view this product: http://www.chapfix.com/.

I thought it was interesting how the product developers had conceptualized masculinity. The use of grips on the sides for “inclement conditions” seemed particularly amusing because it implied that its users would need chapstick when engaged in an extreme category – perhaps mountain-climbing or aerial snowboarding.

Over the years I have indeed observed the reluctance of men and women to use products designated as for the other sex. This is so even if they recognize that the gender of products is socially constructed rather than intrinsic. The owner of Chap + himself commented on it being a marketing ploy, but was still more than happy to join in, even stating that he had no choice but to reward such design dedication.

It is interesting to consider how the gendering of products can evolve over time. For example, something as simple as a pair of pants was once thought of to be a men’s product. Nowadays, women can and do wear pants on a regular basis, and the concept of “pants” is much less closely tied to masculinity. However, it is still loosely tied to it, as evidenced by popular sayings such as “She wears the pants in the relationship.”

There also remains a distinction between “men’s pants” and “women’s pants”, although it may be argued that this is necessary due to anatomical differences between men and women. This suggests that as researchers we should be aware of when the gendering of products is due to inherent differences between men and women (e.g. body structure) and when it is more artificially and socially constructed (e.g. the lip balm example).