Posing isn't just a modern problem

Last Thursday, we watched the film Codes of Gender in class. This film did an excellent job of highlighting the various poses and stances that modern photography has utilized in order to showcase women as being submissive and men as being powerful. The film also mentioned a few companies that have gone against these standards by placing men in the "feminine" poses--though mostly only when posing with an actual female. This section of the film seemed to suggest that the answer to combating these standards is simple: all that has to be done is to essentially mix up the poses between the two genders to establish a sort of visual equality. But I don't believe that solving this issue is that simple. Placing men in poses of power and women in poses of submission can be seen even in historical artworks.  

Take, for instance, the two medieval artworks of William the Conqueror and 'Portrait of a Woman'. The male portrait exhibits some of the power poses seen in modern photography--the straight-forward gaze, the firm posture, the masculine grip, and the awareness of what's happening around him. And yet his female counterpart, the second portrait link, shows a pose similar to female models today. Her gaze is withdrawn; she seems to be lost in thought or off in her own little world, and her hands are merely resting instead of gripping. Indeed, only women who actually held power (queens, ladies, etc.) display in historical portraits  the same poses as men.  

Overall, my point of this is that solving this "posing" problem isn't as easy as the film made it out to be. For at least hundreds of years, men and women have both been depicted in ways to show their assumed level in society. It's going to take a lot more than men lounging on couches or women staring down a camera to break this long-lasting trend.