How often do we think about the question of space? It is quite an abstract concept that is at the same time, tangible and real. Perhaps the notion surfaces when we were teenagers and wishing for our own room, or as we are about to buy our first house, or maybe when we're jostling in a bus. I'm talking about physical space - to move about, breathe, create, dance, eat, rest and have relationships in. Have we ever considered that spaces might be gendered? That is, women and men are placed in differently conceptualised spaces?

Social space has been divided into the public and the private, arguably with the advent of modernism. This is to help the management of production in an industrialised society, where what we use is mediated by an unnamed number of workforce; and the rules which govern our social life are institutionalised through political machineries. The regrettable part is, in the process of conceptualising a liberal political space, women were shunted into the private, domestic sphere (where things like emotionalism, nature, caring for children, managing the house etc., were passed on to women); whilst men were accorded the public sphere.

This is necessary because to enable one half of society to function in public spaces - a space that is constructed as rational, formal and productive - their personal basic needs have to be provided and cared for by someone. Coupled with cultural notions of sexuality and nature, it becomes easier to facilitate the demarcation of women in those spaces. What I mean is, since women are construed as more closely bound to nature, and their sexuality is narrated under ideas of 'shame' and 'secrecy', these support the seemingly 'natural' differentiation of spaces between men and women.

It is important to note here that these notions are socially constructed. There have been many research, analysis and scholarly work done to challenge and destabilise the twofold distinctions between men = technology // women = nature. Even scientific biological understanding of human beings have been demonstrated as being deeply affected by the historical and social situations they are in. For example, when the first female skeleton was drawn, the skull was exaggeratedly drawn as being smaller to men to justify and explain the 'natural' inferiority of women. This has now been proven to be misleading and false. Even then, in the 1700s, the various anatomical depictions of the female skeleton were varied. However, it was found that the drawing which circumscribed most to the gender stereotypes of that time received the most public support, its legitimacy lasting for many years before it was discredited. From here, again because women have been withheld from entering the public space of 'scientific discovery', women's perspectives, opinions and knowledge were given minimal access to impact upon these findings.

The legacy of this divided social space survives till today. In public politics, women are still overwhelmingly a minority. Work at home is still predominantly done by women, and women who have careers still face significant stumbling blocks to gain equal pay and respect. I'm sure most women and girls have been told that their hormones must be going haywire when they are upset or angry. Such callous and careless understanding of science (as if men had no hormones, in fact, they have about as much estrogen - so-called 'female sex' hormones - as women) is often strategically applied to consign women in the lower, private rungs of hierarchical space in society.

Girls are chided for walking or sitting with their limbs thrown open, citing 'shame' as a reason. Ever wondered why boys are encouraged to stake their space in the world while girls are told to be as small as possible at all times? Female courteousness is perceived as crossed legs, speaking softly and tiny gestures while male boisterousness and booming voices are valourised as 'masculine'. When both sexes have similar physique (really, the physiological difference between men and women are nominal at the most); and both are capable of sexual activity and desire, why is it that men are implicitly understood as active whilst women are seen as passive and subservient? Perhaps one of the reason is to ensure that women and girls are kept in the diminutive, private spaces where decisions about their lives are made without them, outside in the public spaces. At the very least, this incongruence is questionable. Even the understanding of 'active' vs. 'passive' is doubtful. When we know that we are all capable of activity, passivity, all the inbetweens and beyonds, why does one gender get to claim that the more valued - the active - belongs to him?

So maybe the next time you move around, note how spaces are gendered through their socially constructed meanings. Then think about how you can negotiate our common ground without the need to push someone aside to artificially inflate your own, or refuse to automatically shrink because it is expected of you as a girl. We can, and should, claim the spaces we live in, in a fairer and less oppressive way.

Jaclyn Kee
16th May 2004

Fortnightly Column by WAO on Sunday Mail