My must read of the day is "Meet the Professor of Hairy Studies," in the Daily Beast:
Breanne Fahs, a professor of gender and women’s studies at ASU, is offering bonus points to female students who grow their leg and armpit hair for 10 weeks during the semester. And male students (would be unfair to leave them out) seeking extra credit are tasked with shaving every inch of body hair from the neck down. Participants are required to keep a diary of hirsute "experiences," along with others’ reactions to furry thighs and stubbly chests.
It’s all part of a social experiment Fahs has incorporated into her course curriculum since 2010. "There’s no better way to learn about societal norms than to violate them and see how people react," Fahs told ASU News, a student newspaper. "There’s really no reason why the choice to shave, or not, should be a big deal. But it is, as the students tend to find out quickly." […]
According to Fahs, the "labor intensive" assignment "gives men some insight into what women who shave go through." The apparently torturous act of grooming is something women--guided by societal norms and media representations--are powerless to fight. Men must "go through" the same horrors to understand the plight of their female classmates because, Fahs says, "male students tend to adopt the attitude of, ‘I’m a man; I can do what I want.’" (One ape-like man, she told the ASU student newspaper, "did his shaving with a buck knife.")
There are numerous ways to convey and experience gender societal pressure, but refusing to shave—or shaving everything—isn’t it.
My issue with this "experiment" is trifold.
This seems to be an experience designed, not to understand double standards or challenge patriarchy, but to garner attention through shock. It might as well be the academic equivalent of mooning someone; it fulfills a basic desire of the adolescent-minded to be noticed.
If it were anything beyond a craving for attention, the outcome wouldn’t be fixed, but as the author notes, "Fahs’ admission that her social experiment is attempting to show how society perceives gender norms suggests that her stunt has a predetermined outcome—as reflected in her students’ uniform takeaways."
And shaving?! Shaving is a poor example of a socially prescribed gender norm. It’s primarily a socially prescribed standard of cleanliness. Most people gawk at the smelly guy with dreds and an unkempt beard, as well. We hate dirt. Being dirty is taboo and somewhere along the way hair became intricately linked to the notion of cleanliness. That’s not patriarchy. It’s just about hygiene.
Basically, this experiment would be more apt for students reading Mary Douglas’ Purity and Danger. As a gender experiment it is remedial and it has not been rewarded for its insight, but for its shock value. What a waste of learning time.