In which she ponders about femininity, or being girly, or she should go to bed...

Yesterday I chopped my hair off--about 15 or 20 cms. I hadn't cut it for almost a year and half and it was time. I've never grown my hair longer than my mid-back. I've tried; I even had bets with my sister but nothing has dissuaded me from cutting it at some point. Long hair is not for me. It may look pretty for some people, and it is, but to me, it's a hassle to have it long.

In any case, my mother was the chopper and she mentioned something I usually hear: long hair highlights your femininity.

But how about men who have long hair? Should I start asking the stereotypical biker with long hair if he feels more feminine by having it that way?

Society tells you that a woman with long hair is more feminine. It's makes you pretty, beautiful even--and don't even doubt it if you have gorgeous hair. Women with short hair, on the other hand, are more masculine or manly. I remember when, once, I had "boy short" hair. Even the name implies it: "boy short." People would ask me why I wanted to have it short, to look like a guy? I would reply that I didn't want to look like a boy, that I loved having hair short. Why is it so bizarre?

People seem to accept some unspoken rules about how and what styles women and men should choose in order to look more, well, womanly or manly. The interesting thing is that the idea only applies to a sex specifically and never to both--at least with long hair. Imagine if a biker with long hair is called girly while he wears the quintessential leather jacket and boots, and shows off his bad-ass tattoos. More interestingly is that a woman can have short hair but is called and/or considered manly more times than a guy with long hair could be called girly. Now, by saying that wearing leather jacket and boots and having bad-ass tattoos is also manly I'm falling into that trap of assigning a specific image for a specific sex.

So are we so unconsciously biased, trained to believe that one sex should look one way but not the other? I'm not an expert in women studies, feminists and masculinity theories but I'm honestly curious about this kind of divisions.

This reminds me of my senior year thesis about the erotic, the male and female gaze; how a more sexually oriented gaze was considered "male" and how it would more often than not be attributed to men. I can't recall authors names or theories, but I remember arguing that whether it was man or woman, both could have and view things with what's defined as the "male gaze." To me, it was almost ridiculous to create these differences but I suppose this concept was created by--and wait for it--feminists who felt objectified in and by the media (mainly). In a way it was a way to protest against disrespectful and possibly humiliating ideas about women.

While I'm not flat out negatively criticizing the concept, I'm also not thrilled. I feel that many women have, in their quest to make themselves heard and respected, highlighted even more the idea that there are marked differences between male and female, woman and man--in they way they should behave, dress, carry themselves in society. By attributing a "name" to a concept and defined it as to mostly belonging to specific "sex" has created more divisions among us.

Why can't a "male gaze" be called a more sexual view of things and a short hair cut just that, a short hair cut--not a "boy short" cut?

As Borges once said, it seems that we love to over-emphasize our differences and forget to pay more attention to our affinities, the points that joins us. Perhaps if we did more of the latter, we would be able to understand each other better--whether one is woman or man, black or white, etc. Take your pick.