The “man spreading chair” was created as a one off art piece made a woman based on her daily commute experience.
It isn’t an actual chair it designed to punish men.
It is part of a set- there’s also a chair that is made to make women sit with their legs open.
It’s not so much anything to do with “manspreading” as to highlight things in society we don’t traditionally talk about, but that bother people.
But yes, a bunch of people saw the things and got triggered. Content providers figured it would make for easy rage bait so they churned it out without context and with sensationalist headlines.
Andy Warhol created art based on money and fame, commercialism. He was acutely aware of the superficial nature of the whole thing and embraced it- even saying its better to hang $200,000 on the wall than buy a painting to show money. He literally painted money, or dollar signs, and sold them for crazy sums. Critics had praised his early works like the repeating prints of Campbell’s soup cans as a skewering of the boring and repetitive nature of advertising, and later called him a sell out with no edge. Warhol maintained he didn’t become a sell out- he had always been a commercial artist interested in making money.
“The man spreading chair” is not a serious design concept, it is art. It is not sexist- it’s art created on the artists reflections on gender roles and the perceptions of sexism. When people look at it and say “they made a chair to force men to sit uncomfortably! That’s sexist!” They’re missing the entire point. They cannot see the forest through the trees- and literally are only looking at half the work of art- the other half being the chair that forces women to sit with their legs wide opened. Together the two pieces of the work raise some interesting questions. That’s really the point. This chair isn’t an “answer to the question of man spreading” but a focal point for questions about personal space and perceptions.
Whatever the chair’s creator intended, by creating something that intentionally and specifically subjugated a portion of the population (males) in its design. By definition it is sexist especially considering that it was a pair of two chairs designed for each biological gender that intentionally made men uncomfortable but allowed women to not be. On top of all that, the award being given was done so on the advertisements and coverage of the chairs’ intent to cause discomfort to men; therefore making it sexist as well.
And it’s not an interesting question that needs focus. It’s been a joke for quite a while and having testicles creates an obstacle to forcing ones legs together without discomfort. That’s biology not some deep social conversation. Doesn’t mean that there aren’t some men that have no regard for intruding on others’ space in compact places like public transportation but that’s not really the point of whether something else is sexist or not
The issue is obscured by the label and the politics and perception. The cultural idea of “man spreading” is associated with what you mention- ignoring the male anatomy or a man’s right to choose how he sits. The issue that most people who aren’t being ridiculous take- isn’t that men spread their legs- but when men do so in a way that encroaches o. Others personal space. If you spectate the two- you an discuss either in a constructive manner. If you conflate the two- you end up with rhetoric and silly pointless squabbling.
That being said- you say that obviously it is an issue of a man’s comfort that he spread his legs. It is how he is made. But... you also said there aren’t any interesting questions... and here we already have a question. It is so obvious and final on the issue that biology demands men spread their legs for comfort.. but we know humans in general- most creatures- have some concept of “personal space” required for comfort as well. So... why would your mind automatically default to the idea that a man’s testicular comfort is the be all and end all of the discussion over all other factors including the comfort of those around him- were he to encroach on theirs?
Werer we seated in an airplane in coach next to each other- biology would dictate for my comfort- my arm would overhang your seat. I can of course “shrink” and position myself so as not to do this- but it is uncomfortable for me. So then- in this case is your ruling that my anatomy being that of a 220lb 6ft+ male with a high lean body mass- that there is nothing else to discuss here? You get to enjoy a flight to Hawaii with my arm hovering in your face- and that’s just how it should be?
You make a good point. We should build bigger planes and not treat people like sardines but in all seriousness yes personal space and encroaching on it is a problem directly tied to manspreading. It’s a matter of compromise on a social scale to judge your physical comfort with someone else’s feeling of being encroached upon. Guys don’t like having their legs forced together like the chair made them but there’s also no need for me to spread my legs as far as I can either. I make the compromise to not be in pain and to not make anyone sitting next to me awkward or feel like I’m in their space.
With that being said now‘s the time to spread wide as long as your femur is less than 3 feet. Encourage social distancing however you can
Lmao. Yes. As you indicate- personal space is a universal concept but a subjective cultural negotiation. Under present circumstances- “man spreading” is a heroes stance- used to help fight back against this contagion! In all seriousness- the designer of the chair didn’t intend it as a serious chair to force men’s legs together. The juxtaposition is that women are traditionally told to sit with their legs together- the “manspreaidng chair” is physically uncomfortable to many men, and it’s counter part that forces women to sit legs open is socially uncomfortable for many women.
That’s where some of the interestingness comes from. When we go past the face value of the piece or the politics and backlash of modern gender tropes in the mainstream and just let the questions come from looking at the pieces and at society and people’s reactions to them and such.
The examination of the pieces on a very superficial level as a political tool (for any view) misses the point. It’s like watching South Park or family guy etc. and saying the creators hate Jews or Black people or gays and so on, because on a very surface level- they made some joke about some group which was meant as satire or as an open ended observation or had some subversive element as a tool for thought- but a guy on the far spectrum one way sees a joke about a dark skinned bike thief and says “yup. That’s how things are” and to the opposite end they see it and say “that’s just racist and...” but neither was the creators intent.
The other thing for me- is that if we want to we can create all sorts of elements to art beyond what is intended. Mein Kampf was created with an intent- but one could read it and deconstruct it to say “it’s actually a call to togetherness and inclusion and...” well.. you can read it how you want. Not what was intended. On this art- the obvious surface read would be “sexism” but why can’t we throw in “weight shaming” too- since either chair would be uncomfortable and dig into the thighs of the extremely obese? So yeah- art is subjective. I can’t speak to what people see in art so much as in this case at least- to the intent of the artist.
It isn’t an actual chair it designed to punish men.
It is part of a set- there’s also a chair that is made to make women sit with their legs open.
It’s not so much anything to do with “manspreading” as to highlight things in society we don’t traditionally talk about, but that bother people.
With that being said now‘s the time to spread wide as long as your femur is less than 3 feet. Encourage social distancing however you can