Gender bias in public signs: The "woman as nurturer" stereotype.
[Traducción a español en verde y cursiva, al final]
For years, this had been the reserved seat sticker I had been familiar with every time I took the bus. The one informing us that the front seats are reserved to blind, old and injured people, pregnant women, and women with children. Then, a year ago, I noticed that this sticker was on one side of the bus' front rows, but that in the other one there was a variation:
Here the blind person and the old person are not depicted as male, but as female. And while the figure holding a child was female in the classic sign, now it was male. Well, I was very glad to see this. Even if I haven't seen this variation in all the buses (I did see in the underground while in Austria, too, though).
Because what was wrong with the first sign, equality-wise? Gender stereotypes.
What does it matter that the blind/old/injured person, or the person carrying a child, be a man or a woman? Only in the case of the pregnant woman could the sex of the person relevant, and not even then (as we know that trans men and afab non-binary people can get pregnant). And yet, the individual depicted carrying a child is a woman. Which means that apparently it is the women who always care after the children, only the women. It is no man's territory. The sign was perpetuating the classical stereotype of the woman as the nurturer, the one who has the obligation to care after the children, because, apparently, it is 'in her nature', all that biology determinism rubbish. The blind person, the old person, the injured person, those don't really need to be recognized as female, they are either recognised as male or as standard human depictions - which is the way everyone should be depicted unless sex/gender are really relevant, in my opinion. But apparently the gender of the person looking after the child is relevant somehow. And it is always female.
Which bugs me, because:
a) It is unfair that women be told that it is in their nature to have full responsibility in looking after their children, leaving the male partner (if we're talking about a heterosexual relationship) free of any duties in this respect.
b) It is equally unfair to say that it is not in men's nature to care after children, because taking on a nurturing, caring role is 'not masculine'. And although things have gotten better, fathers are still either mocked and gaped at for caring after their children openl (or instead praised to no end for doing the bare minimum, which is also a double standard). You know, it's that stereotype where a man with his child in a park is surrounded by mothers and feeling awkard (questioning his manliness, even) because they generally gape at him, surprised at seeing such a rara avis. Reactions go from 'He must be gay' (ie, a man with a nurturer side must loose his masculinity or be considered as gay, yet another stereotype, not to mention the homophobia of these kind of statements) to 'Wow, you're so cute and/or admirable, you're actually looking after children!' - putting the man on a pedestal for doing his duties as a father, same as all mothers are expected to do without any sizeable recognition.
Men should have both the same rights and the same obligations as women when it comes to taking care of the children. They should feel that taking care of a child is not going to lower their masculinity, and that they should be able to enjoy showing care and affection, if they wish to. They should also know that caring for one's children is not only the mother's responsibility. The father had a part in it all, too, and should act accordingly.
The new signs seem to take that into account, which is good. A step towards equality. Little things, but those also matter.
Update, September 2016: This bathroom sign in Cardiff's Waterstones subverts gender roles and shows equality by depicting the male figure being the one taking care of the children (the sign for the child-caring part of the bathroom, which was a shared bathroom in this case).
I feel, however, that the fact that so many signs feel that they must specify the gender of the person depicted often only perpetuates gender steretypes. In the case of the first bus sign, they were perpetuating the 'women are the child-carers, not the men' stereotype. It can be solved showing both men and women, in alternate possitions, doing the same things, as they have done here. But is it really necessary to show all those skirt vs trousers variations? The skirt vs trousers issue is another rather unfortunate stereotype used to differentiate between men and women, although yes, it is hard to find a better alternative with such simplified depictions, and a stereotype-free one. And showing the genitalia in the stickers would be problematic as well, not because our society, otherwise highly used to hypersexualization and objectification, might be scandalized about it (the irony), but mainly because that would uphold the limited sex and gender binary and would be very exclusive to trans people, for example. So no easy solution there.
If the world were as I'd like it to be, signs like these would not need to make a difference between women and men, because we would be simply considered as human-beings, and their sex/gender would only be specified when it were really important (like, for example, in bathrooms signs and the like), and all the rest of the signs would only show human-stick-figures, representing both men and women. There are quite a lot of apparently 'unisex signs' out there, true, although I sometimes wonder if they're supposed to be humans or just men/male. Because patriarchy has often made "men" a synonim of "humans", something which is widely seen in literature and other writings. So in a way, I do like seeing "trousers" and "skirts" in equal measure...even if these differentiations can easily perpetuate unhealthy stereotypes when used incorrectly. But in an ideal context, I'd much rather see unisex stickers.
