I also like that the woman is more full figured than your average "generic crossing sign". I mean, it looks like R Crumb did the template design. Refreshing.

From the original blog

"I like the way her sex is indicated, not by the traditional skirt typical of washroom signs, but by a jaunty ponytail. It’s also clear that her body has a more female shape than the traditional walking man."

btw, why do we need to have a silhouette at all? arent we pretty much conditioned by this point that red means stop and green means go?

I think the silhouette is necessary on crosswalk signs to distinguish them from the car or bike traffic lights. Otherwise it seems you would risk some serious crashes if someone looked at the wrong sign. Also, the position of the figure probably helps colorblind pedestrians.

Seeing this fills me with an odd sense of comfort. It makes me feel more included somehow. Refreshing!

Although I guess it is refreshing, it's sad to see that long hair and high heels makes a woman.

I like the signs - fun! But surely the green or red 'man' we normally see on lights is more masculine 'by name' than 'by design'? Two arms, two legs, and a head do not a specifically male person make, surely?

...Though I'll admit the shoulders on regular 'green man' signs ARE pretty broad. Anyway, fun design.

I am deeply in love with this sign and with the Netherlands for having it. The default male on signs is a constant reminder of women as second-class citizens, and seeing a step taken to counteract that is really empowering.

I've long held a tongue-in-cheek theory about the cryptoracist symbology of traditional crosswalk signs (come on, the white man represents progress while the red man stops it?), so this tickles me.

In Boston, MA, USA, many of our crosswalk signs just say "WALK" and have a flashing red hand or "DON'T WALK" (excluding, of course, those mentioned above).

If you're curious about crosswalk lights, as I for some reason was, here's a Google image search: http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=crosswalk+light&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

Don't get too excited about the woman=person bit - there is a Miffy version as well! http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwinek/191042364/

It's cute, but I prefer a totally gender-neutral crosswalk person.

My favorite crossing sign ever:

http://cableandtweed.blogspot.com/2006/11/mr-understood-willy-terry-story.html

It's my understanding that the WALK / DON'T WALK signs were replaced since they assume knowledge of English that not everyone seeing them might have.

As for the "gender neutral" walking symbol, is it really neutral? Is it just another illustration of the ways in which men are assumed to be the "neutral" gender, and women are the other?

@ Alicia and Luey - I'd argue that we are being trained to think that a man is a gender-neutral being. A woman doesn't have to be defined by a ponytail and heels, true, but a person in a ponytail and heels is just as much a person as one without. I like what they're doing here.

See the "Variations" subheader on the wikipedia article for the Ampelmann (Traffic Lights Man) of Berlin for more examples, including an Ampelfrau. There's also a Danish town with a soldier traffic lights guy.

@Matt K - Yes I believe the original signs are gender neutral. There is no reason to feel that it is a man just because there are no obvious signals either way (such as a ponytail... which doesn't really mean its a girl, Steven Seagal wore a ponytail).

On that note, why does everything on this site have to spawn a discussion on why men are the "default" sex? Why can't this just be a "Hey look a traffic signal with a ponytail clad person, that's cool."

Mark, why shouldn't everything (which is, of course, an exaggerations) spawn a discussion on how male is considered the 'default' sex? It's a site to post and discuss images within society from a sociological viewpoint - posting a picture of a figure with a ponytail and saying 'Hey, cool' is missing out on an opportunity to look at how this kind of image reflects cultural norms and values.

I do see the original walk sign as gender neutral, but when you have the female walk sign coupled with the original walk sign then yes the original walk sign becomes male instead of non-gendered. So perhaps what needs to happen is that the sign for male needs to be distinguished from the gender neutral sign. In other words, change the male sign on the bathroom to be specifically male, then when you have the gender neutral sign on the cross walk, it will be read as non-gendered as it should be.

@Faber - Some things shouldn't spawn such a discussion because they do not bring up a valid reason to. Such as this traffic signal for example. It is a picture of a ponytail clad person symbolizing when to stop and go. I don't feel that men have been suppressing female "defaultness" for all these years by the use of an asexual looking person on a traffic light.

The phrase "woman = person" I also don't believe would be "weird" most of the time in most places. That is why I don't think these images are the greatest choice to reflect on male dominance of all things "default."

By pointing out something like this and discussing it, we're not holding that it's the only, or even a crucial part of patriarchy. Things like this do show, however, that so many little things which we take for granted are influenced by patriarchy and other social systems.

Similar story from Spain:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6206084.stm

Oh, I'm so glad it is just a stop light. Not a diet/"obesity is destroying the world" ad or announcement...I was almost certain that was what it would be before I scrolled down because the figure looks chubby.

@another constellation

Traffic signals are red and white where you are? In most places they're red and green (like in these pictures).

Oh, brother.

I think that's a girl, not a woman. Having a child on a traffic light makes sense - take care of the child - and if it's going to read well it has to be a girl, not a boy.

I'm female and yet I don't identify with this at all - I guess my shape matches a lot better with the apparently 'masculine' version. Sucks to have big shoulders and a flat chest, I guess..

To me this is probably as bad as a male specific sign, since it's specifically disregarding the other sex. Yes, some people are arguing that you can find men who look like the image above.. But I imagine that most of us have been taught to associate the above body shape with women.

I agree with Alyssa - the original walk sign IS gender neutral (how much more neutral can you get than four limbs and a head?) so perhaps the distinction should be more apparent on signs that are specifically for men, such as for toilets.

In the case of street signs, I think it's foolish to make a gender-specific sign, as perhaps someone would be dumb enough to look at that and think: 'oh, it says women should be stopping, but maybe it's okay for men to go..' When it comes to street signs you can never be too cautious.

I like that the image starts a good conversation, but I don't think it makes a safe traffic signal.

Could we perhaps see some interesting pics of male/female toilet signs? Has there been a post on this before? I know I've seen some interesting ones every now and again... maybe I'll start taking pics.

Awesome, she's a normal shape! Wow.

Lisa or Gwen, do you have the link to the one page with the symbols of escalator safety? Where the so-called "gender-neutral" symbol is in every picture until the one with kids, which has a clear woman in a dress?

I think that would really help people see that two legs, two arms, and a head is NOT gender-neutral in our society.

More to what Elena wrote:

The Ampelmann is from the former East Germany, not just Berlin. The first Ampelfrau (Crossing Light Woman, although she looks like a girl to me) was installed in Zwickau, then in Dresden. I used to live in Dresden and loved to see the little Ampelfrau whenever I happened to come across one! Now if only they were put up all over Germany!
(sorry, only in German language, but a picture is shown)
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampelfrau

I for one did not looks like this as a little girl, as I was more likely to be wearing jeans and a t-shirt. However, I would have at least identified with the crosswalk girl and felt proud about it. I feel like it's a step in the right direction - children certainly notice these things!

By the way, has there ever been a posting about female bus/subway/tram drivers versus male and the perception of women as being bad at driving? Another thing I noticed living in Dresden, is the large number of female tram drivers. Especially noticable now that I live in Berlin and I see that the great majority of subway drivers are men. Interesting stuff.

At Smith College, someone graffiti'ed the walking sign into a woman with a skirt and a ponytail. Good thinking since it's an all-women's college! Wish I had a photo for you!

Why is it nice that they are gendering stuff? How could the walk sign not be gender neutral? It is a bunch of geometrical shapes forming a head, torso and limbs. It is a generic person figure.

How is it nice to gender things as female but bad to gender as male?

@Caroline:
The two arms, two legs, and a head sign is gendered neutral until it is paired with a non gendered neutral symbol such as the escalator safety sign you mention. If the person with the child were the same two arms, two legs, and head symbol as the other three then it would read as gendered neutral yes?
My point isn't that there isn't a problem; my point is that the problem arises by using gendered neutral and male symbols interchangably. Instead of getting rid of gendered neutral symbols, maybe we need to actually use gendered neutral symbols in gender neutral situations (including having an adult holding a child's hand), and specifically male symbols in the appropriate situations (such as bathroom signs). I do think the blue sign behind the walk sign (in the top picture) has a gendered neutral symbol holding a child's hand (although it is obscured by the walk sign, so I could be wrong); I'd like to see more of this.

On a side note: I forgot to mention earlier the thing I do like about this sign is that it is a heavier set woman. Very nice to see that type of figure being normalized.

I have started using "she" as the default pronoun for anyone that isn't explicitly gendered and "woman" for all words that "normally" use "man."

Policewoman
Mailwoman
Firewoman
Sportswomanship
Swordswoman
Womankind
Workwoman
Chairwoman
10-woman raid
Woman-made
Freshwoman
Businesswoman
Congresswoman
etc.

Does it make you feel weird? Why? How do you think the "normal" version of these words and phrases make women feel?

WOW...check out the lobster claw on that little "go" girl on the Germany light...

pg, that is a great idea...makes it hard to ignore the basicness of maleness. Reminds me of when I was in HS and I wrote a paper for English class in which I used he/she for the third person. The teacher said, "That's annoying; if you don't want to use 'he', go ahead and use 'she' if you want...these days that is correct and just as accurate." So when I revised it I used all "she"s. I felt bad for leaving out the hypothetical menz, but it really is no worse than the traditional way of leaving out hypothetical women...

The two arms, two legs, and a head sign is gendered neutral until it is paired with a non gendered neutral symbol such as the escalator safety sign you mention

Same for bathroom signs, where men are represented by the gender-neutral stick figure, and women are represented by the skirt-figure which is the deviation from the default.

Signs like those in the original post are a great topic for discussion because they raise points like, yes, not all women wear ponytails and high heels, and some men wear ponytails, and by the way, why do we choose to represent one gender with those particular symbols. On the other hand, as long as such things are "generally" recognized to be the purview of women, why not represent women as the default on signs? And here I'll stop because my knowledge of modern theories of semiotics is scant.

I never thought about the gender of the signs.
It feels wrong to even begin this.
It's a stickman... or at leat I thought it is.
It isn't?

rachel: "WOW…check out the lobster claw on that little “go” girl on the Germany light…"

It's the same basic design as the original "go" Ampelmann.

Also, by gendering the signs like that, doesn't it say that the other one, regarded as neutral, is male? I think it has the same effect as the neutral sign being used as male on bathroom doors.

Thanks for linking that, Elena.

pg: Some of those I really like, when it's somewhat unavoidable to gender one way or another, but for others I think I still prefer the gender neutral version ("police officer" and "firefighter" etc.) Then I'll be more subtle about it, and refer to that person as "she" when I reference them later just to be like "ha ha! You were getting complacent and assuming gender neutral meant male! Not so fast, pardner." :D

Obviously, using all-female to make a *point* is different than what just sounds most natural in conversation (or what is more true-neutral.)

Astrid: I agree. Realistically, when I see a figure in a skirt with a ponytail I think "hey, female! I'm female too! Yay!" and identify with it. I don't think "hey, a person with a ponytail and a skirt ...but I'm not wearing a skirt! NOOO I am left out in the cold once agaaain!" So I think that even using really obvious stereotypical gender markers in this case is a net positive for the women seeing them (even if they don't exactly match your own body type for example...)

All this talk of "4 limbs and a head represents everyone" is kind of ableist though, ya'll. Just something that stuck out to me.

P.P. PG aren't you doing the same, just switching from man to woman?
I mean... isn't the idea not to separate us by gender?
I do not get it.

I dunno. I'm female and I look 100% more like the "male" figures.

Sigh at Mark & Fernando's willful privileged blindness.

PG, I like your idea. As an non-gender-binary-identified (genderqueer) person, I am more and more of the ways that "male" is considered default. (And, of course, not only that, but people assume they have a "50% chance" to get it right, when neither of the two choices apply to me!) Because of this I have started the (admittedly slow and cumbersome) process of removing gendered speech from my vocabulary and going with gender neutral -- "police officer," "fireperson," etc, and trying to bring in gender-neutral/ungendered pronouns, as well. Though that requires a lot of explanation to third parties.

I hope the folks you've been interacting with have enough brains to start to wonder why they feel uncomfortable or questioning about your language and realize men aren't the only ones out there (or at least the only ones that matter), despite cultural attitudes saying differently.

I visited Prague a few years ago and it came to my attention that the sign for pedestrian zone pictured a man with a little girl instead of a woman with a little boy, as it is in Germany and actually every other country in Europe I visited during that time. The man is portrayed with a hat, which I believe was the standard representation of a working man in the times of the communist governments, like the Ampelman (the guy in a hat on the traffic lights in Berlin), so it may have to do with that, but it's good for a change to see a man walking the city with his daughter (in white with a blue background), instead of the generalization that women should be in charge of such activities. It's still not ungendered, but let's take baby steps here.

How is the original figure "asexual" when it's used to distinguished male from female restrooms? If the same exact figure appears to denote which bathroom men should use and women shouldn't go into, doesn't that necessarily make it a part of the cultural lexicon of symbols denoting manhood and masculinity? It's not about whether the figure looks asexual, it's how our culture uses it, and we definitely use to represent a man when it's not being used to represent everyone; therefore, it does reinforce men as the default sex.

The silhouette figure of a person comes from the simplicity of the design. It's easier to draw a boxy figure. The silhouettes that feature the female gender always have added shapes. It has nothing to do with gender neutrality. But it has to do with making the simplest and most easily identifiable sign.

The reason the basic figure happens to be used as an indicator of the male gender is this: The average male lacks common identifiable traits, outside of the basic boxy figure. Whereas the female tends to have more common traits that go outside the boxy frame.

It's really just a matter of simplicity.

Also, no right thinking man cares what the figure on the sign is. So in turn, I'm confused as to why women care.

And another woman! Although the description of it being 'quirky' is a bit, uh...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2824374/Flashing-women-to-be-a-traffic-stopper/

Or non human. This country uses a popular bunny.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/gregraisman/3549298291/

in laos you sometimes see female figures on street signs, and they're dressed in the traditional lao sihn (skirt). this is particularly common in luang prabang, perhaps because it's a cultural center of the country. this isn't my photo, but here's a great example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandy49/3285996506/

It's most likely that these depict women, but, especially for the figures whose silhouettes are not defined, we could think of them as people-in-skirts. I know men who like to wear skirts. Some of them have long hair too. Realizing it's hard to depict every member of a community in language and images, and that those in power (white, straight, male, abled, mid class) typically get to fit that seat, I challenge us to both find more ways to depict the real diversity of our communities and come up with language and images that present a variable image of gender, race, etc. Personally, I like the word "folks" Thoughts.?

Bloomers. And a feathered hat. That might work as asexual.

To me the ones who made these traffic lights said: "We all know that women aren't able to drive a car, but there's nothing they can do better than walking on foot! Why don't we produce traffic lights featuring walking women!!!?????"