|
Main articles: Gender identity and Gender role Gender identity is the gender a person self-identifies as. One's biological sex is directly tied to specific social roles and expectations. Judith Butler considers the concept of being a woman to have more challenges, owing not only to society's viewing women as a social category but also as a felt sense of self, a culturally conditioned or constructed subjective identity.[18] The term "woman" has chronically been used as a reference to and for the female body; this usage has been viewed as controversial by feminists[weasel words], in the definition of "woman". There are qualitative analyses that explore and present the representations of gender; feminists[who?] challenge the dominant ideologies concerning gender roles and sex. Social identity refers to the common identification with a collectivity or social category that creates a common culture among participants concerned.[19] According to social identity theory,[20] an important component of the self-concept is derived from memberships in social groups and categories; this is demonstrated by group processes and how inter-group relationships impact significantly on individuals' self perception and behaviors. The groups people belong to therefore provide members with the definition of who they are and how they should behave in the social sphere.[21] Categorizing males and females into social roles creates binaries in which individuals feel they have to be at one end of a linear spectrum and must identify themselves as man or woman.[citation needed][clarification needed] Globally, communities interpret biological differences between men and women to create a set of social expectations that define the behaviors that are "appropriate" for men and women and determine women’s and men’s different access to rights, resources, power in society and even health behaviors.[22] Although the specific nature and degree of these differences vary from one society to the next, they typically favor men, creating an imbalance in power and gender inequalities in all countries.[23][better source needed] According to Spade and Valentine (2011), there is no universal definition of expectations or responsibilities of gender. Many cultures have different expectations based on gender, but there is no universal standard to a masculine or feminine role across all cultures.[24] Philosopher Michel Foucault claims that as sexual subjects, humans are the object of power, which is not an institution or structure, rather it is a signifier or name attributed to "complex strategical situation".[25] Because of this, "power" is what determines individual attributes, behaviors, etc. and people are a part of an ontologically and epistemologically constructed set of names and labels. Such as, being female characterizes one as a woman, and being a woman signifies one as weak, emotional, and irrational, and is incapable of actions attributed to a "man". Judith Butler said that gender and sex are more like verbs than nouns. She reasoned that her actions are limited because she is female. "I am not permitted to construct my gender and sex willy-nilly," she said.[citation needed] "[This] is so because gender is politically and therefore socially controlled. Rather than 'woman' being something one is, it is something one does."[18] More recent criticisms of Judith Butler's theories critique her writing for reinforcing the very conventional dichotomies of gender.[26] Social assignment and the idea of gender fluidity See also: Sex assignment According to Kate Bornstein, gender can have ambiguity and fluidity.[27] There are two contrasting ideas regarding the definition of gender, and the intersection of both of them is definable as below: The World Health Organization defines gender as the result of socially constructed ideas about the behavior, actions, and roles a particular sex performs.[4] The beliefs, values and attitude taken up and exhibited by them is as per the agreeable norms of the society and the personal opinions of the person is not taken into the primary consideration of assignment of gender and imposition of gender roles as per the assigned gender.[4] Intersections and crossing of the prescribed boundaries have no place in the arena of the social construct of the term "gender". The assignment of gender involves taking into account the physiological and biological attributes assigned by nature followed by the imposition of the socially constructed conduct. The social label of being classified into one or the other sex is obligatory to the medical stamp on the birth certificate. Gender is a term used to exemplify the attributes that a society or culture constitutes as "masculine" or "feminine". Although a person's sex as male or female stands as a biological fact that is identical in any culture, what that specific sex means in reference to a person's gender role as a woman or a man in society varies cross culturally according to what things are considered to be masculine or feminine.[28] The cultural traits typically coupled to a particular sex finalize the assignment of gender and the biological differences that play a role in classifying either sex is interchangeable with the definition of gender within the social context. In this context, the socially constructed rules are at a cross road with the assignment of a particular gender to a person. Gender ambiguity deals with having the freedom to choose, manipulate and create a personal niche within any defined socially constructed code of conduct while gender fluidity is outlawing all the rules of cultural gender assignment. It does not accept the prevalence of the two rigidly defined genders "man" and "woman" and believes in freedom to choose any kind of gender with no rules, no defined boundaries and no fulfilling of expectations associated with any particular gender. Both these definitions are facing opposite directionalities with their own defined set of rules and criteria on which the said systems are based. Social categories Mary Frith ("Moll Cutpurse") scandalised 17th century society by wearing male clothing, smoking in public, and otherwise defying gender roles. Sexologist John Money coined the term gender role in 1955. The term gender role means those things people say or do to disclose their status of boy or man, girl or woman, respectively. It includes, but is not restricted to, sexuality in the sense of eroticism.[29] Elements of such a role include clothing, speech patterns, movement, occupations, and other factors not limited to biological sex. Because social aspects of gender can normally be presumed to be the ones of interest in sociology and closely related disciplines, gender role is often abbreviated to gender in their literature. "Rosie the Riveter" was an iconic symbol of the American homefront in WWII and a departure from gender roles due to wartime necessity. Most societies have only two distinct, broad classes of gender roles, masculine and feminine, that correspond with the biological sexes of male and female. When a baby is born, society allocates the child to one sex or the other, on the basis of what the genitals look like.[28] However, some societies explicitly incorporate people who adopt the gender role opposite to their biological sex; for example, the two-spirit people of some indigenous American peoples. Other societies include well-developed roles that are explicitly considered more or less distinct from archetypal female and male roles in those societies. In the language of the sociology of gender, they comprise a third gender,[30] more or less distinct from biological sex (sometimes the basis for the role does include intersexuality or incorporates eunuchs).[31] One such gender role is that adopted by the hijras of India and Pakistan.[32][33] Another example may be the Muxe (pronounced [ˈmuʃe]), found in the state of Oaxaca, in southern Mexico, "beyond gay and straight."[34] The Bugis people of Sulawesi, Indonesia have a tradition that incorporates all the features above.[35] Joan Roughgarden argues that some non-human animal species also have more than two genders, in that there might be multiple templates for behavior available to individual organisms with a given biological sex.[36][clarification needed] In July 2012 Gopi Shankar, a Gender activist and a student from The American College in Madurai coined the regional terms for genderqueer people in Tamil, Gopi said apart from male and female, there are more than 20 types of genders, such as transwoman, transmen, androgynous, pangender, trigender,, etc., and ancient India refers it as Trithiya prakirthi. "[15][37][38] Measurement of gender identity Early gender identity research hypothesized a single bipolar dimension of masculinity-femininity—that is masculinity and femininity were opposites on one continuum. As societal stereotypes changed, however, assumptions of the unidimensional model were challenged. This led to the development of a two-dimensional gender identity model, in which masculinity and femininity were conceptualized as two separate, orthogonal dimensions, coexisting in varying degrees within an individual. This conceptualization on femininity and masculinity remains the accepted standard today.[39] Two instruments incorporating the multidimensional of masculinity and femininity have dominated gender identity research: The Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) and the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). Both instruments categorize individuals as either being sex typed (males report themselves as identifying primarily with masculine traits, females report themselves as identifying primarily with feminine traits), cross sex-typed (males report themselves as identifying primarily with feminine traits, females report themselves as identifying primarily with masculine traits), androgynous (either males or females who report themselves as high on both masculine and feminine traits) or undifferentiated (either males or females who report themselves as low on both masculine and feminine traits).[39] Twenge (1997) noted that, although men are generally more masculine than women and women generally more feminine than men, the association between biological sex and masculinity/femininity is waning.[40] Feminism theory and gender studies Part of a series on Feminist philosophy Major works A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) The Subjection of Women (1869) The Second Sex (1949) Gender Trouble (1990) Notable theorists Mary Wollstonecraft · Simone de Beauvoir · Judith Butler Important concepts Feminism Gender Equality Performativity v t e Biologist and feminist academic Anne Fausto-Sterling rejects the discourse of biological versus social determinism and advocates a deeper analysis of how interactions between the biological being and the social environment influence individuals' capacities.[41] The philosopher and feminist Simone de Beauvoir applied existentialism to women's experience of life: "One is not born a woman, one becomes one."[42] In context, this is a philosophical statement. However, it may be analyzed in terms of biology—a girl must pass puberty to become a woman—and sociology, as a great deal of mature relating in social contexts is learned rather than instinctive.[43] Within feminist theory, terminology for gender issues developed over the 1970s. In the 1974 edition of Masculine/Feminine or Human, the author uses "innate gender" and "learned sex roles",[44] but in the 1978 edition, the use of sex and gender is reversed.[45] By 1980, most feminist writings had agreed on using gender only for socioculturally adapted traits. In gender studies the term gender refers to proposed social and cultural constructions of masculinities and femininities. In this context, gender explicitly excludes reference to biological differences, to focus on cultural differences.[46] This emerged from a number of different areas: in sociology during the 1950s; from the theories of the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan; and in the work of French psychoanalysts like Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray, and American feminists such as Judith Butler. Those who followed Butler came to regard gender roles as a practice, sometimes referred to as "performative".[47] Charles E. Hurst states that some people think sex will, "...automatically determine one’s gender demeanor and role (social) as well as one’s sexual orientation (sexual attractions and behavior).[48] Gender sociologists believe that people have cultural origins and habits for dealing with gender. For example, Michael Schwalbe believes that humans must be taught how to act appropriately in their designated gender to fill the role properly, and that the way people behave as masculine or feminine interacts with social expectations. Schwalbe comments that humans "are the results of many people embracing and acting on similar ideas".[49] People do this through everything from clothing and hairstyle to relationship and employment choices. Schwalbe believes that these distinctions are important, because society wants to identify and categorize people as soon as we see them. They need to place people into distinct categories to know how we should feel about them. Hurst comments that in a society where we present our genders so distinctly, there can often be severe consequences for breaking these cultural norms. Many of these consequences are rooted in discrimination based on sexual orientation. Gays and lesbians are often discriminated against in our legal system because of societal prejudices.[citation needed] Hurst describes how this discrimination works against people for breaking gender norms, no matter what their sexual orientation is. He says that "courts often confuse sex, gender, and sexual orientation, and confuse them in a way that results in denying the rights not only of gays and lesbians, but also of those who do not present themselves or act in a manner traditionally expected of their sex".[50] This prejudice plays out in our legal system when a man or woman is judged differently because he or she does not present the "correct" gender. Andrea Dworkin stated her "commitment to destroying male dominance and gender itself" while stating her belief in radical feminism.[51] Critiques of feminist theory by Warren Farrell[52][53] have given broader consideration to findings from a ten-year study of courtship by Buss.[54] Both perspectives on gendering are integrated in Attraction Theory, a theoretical framework developed by Dr Rory Ridley-Duff illustrating how courtship and parenting obligations (rather than male dominance) act as a generative mechanism that produces and reproduces a range of gender identities.[55][56] Political scientist Mary Hawkesworth addresses gender and feminist theory, noting that since the 1970s the concept of gender has transformed and been used in significantly different ways within feminist scholarship.[57] Hawkesworth notes that a transition occurred when several feminist scholars, such as Sandra Harding and Joan Scott, began to conceive of gender "as an analytic category within which humans think about and organize their social activity".[58] Feminist scholars in Political Science began employing gender as an analytical category, which highlighted "social and political relations neglected by mainstream accounts".[59] However, Hawkesworth notes "feminist political science has not become a dominant paradigm within the discipline".[59] American political scientist Karen Beckwith addresses the concept of gender within political science arguing that a "common language of gender" exists and that it must be explicitly articulated in order to build upon it within the political science discipline. Beckwith describes two ways in which the political scientist may employ 'gender' when conducting empirical research: "gender as a category and as a process." Employing gender as a category allows for political scientists "to delineate specific contexts where behaviours, actions, attitudes and preferences considered masculine or feminine result in particular" political outcomes.[60] It may also demonstrate how gender differences, not necessarily corresponding precisely with sex, may "constrain or facilitate political" actors.[60] Gender as a process has two central manifestations in political science research, firstly in determining "the differential effects of structures and policies upon men and women," and secondly, the ways in which masculine and feminine political actors "actively work to produce favorable gendered outcomes".[61] With regard to gender studies, Jacquetta Newman states that although sex is determined biologically, the ways in which people express gender is not. Gendering is a socially constructed process based on culture, though often cultural expectations around women and men have a direct relationship to their biology. Because of this, Newman argues, many privilege sex as being a cause of oppression and ignore other issues like race, ability, poverty, etc. Current gender studies classes seek to move away from that and examine the intersectionality of these factors in determining people's lives. She also points out that other non-Western cultures do not necessarily have the same views of gender and gender roles.[62] Newman also debates the meaning of equality, which is often considered the goal of feminism; she believes that equality is a problematic term because it can mean many different things, such as people being treated identically, differently, or fairly based on their gender. Newman believes this is problematic because there is no unified definition as to what equality means or looks like, and that this can be significantly important in areas like public policy.[63] Social construction of sex hypotheses See also: Sex and gender distinction Scholars generally regard gender as a social construct, and various researchers, including some feminists, consider sex to only be a matter of biology and something that is not about social or cultural construction. For instance, sexologist John Money suggests the distinction between biological sex and gender as a role.[29] Moreover, Ann Oakley, a professor of sociology and social policy, says "the constancy of sex must be admitted, but so also must the variability of gender."[64] The World Health Organization states, "'[s]ex' refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women," and "'[g]ender' refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women."[65] Thus, sex is regarded as a category studied in biology (natural sciences), while gender is studied in humanities and social sciences. Lynda Birke, a feminist biologist, maintains "'biology' is not seen as something which might change."[66] Therefore, it is stated that sex is something that does not change, while gender can change according to social structure. However, there are scholars who argue that sex is also socially constructed. For example, Judith Butler, a professor of rhetoric and comparative literature, states that "perhaps this construct called 'sex' is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender turns out to be no distinction at all."[67] She continues: It would make no sense, then, to define gender as the cultural interpretation of sex, if sex is itself a gendered category. Gender ought not to be conceived merely as the cultural inscription of meaning on a pre-given sex (a juridical conception); gender must also designate the very apparatus of production whereby the sexes themselves are established. [...] This production of sex as the pre-discursive ought to be understood as the effect of the apparatus of cultural construction designated by gender.[68] Moreover, she asserts that "bodies only appear, only endure, only live within the productive constraints of certain highly gendered regulatory schemas,"[69] and sex is "no longer as a bodily given on which the construct of gender is artificially imposed, but as a cultural norm which governs the materialization of bodies."[70] With regard to history, Linda Nicholson, a professor of history and women's studies, says that the notion of human bodies being separated into two sexes is not historically consistent. She argues that male genitals and female genitals were considered inherently the same in Western society until the 18th century. At that time, female genitals were regarded as incomplete male genitals, and the difference between the two was conceived as a matter of degree. In other words, there was a gradation of physical forms, or a spectrum. Therefore, the current perspective toward sex, which is to consider women and men and their typical genitalia as the only possible natural options, came into existence through historical, not biological roots.[71] In addition, drawing from the empirical research of intersex children, Anne Fausto-Sterling, a professor of biology and gender studies, describes how the doctors address the issues of intersexuality. She starts her argument with an example of the birth of an intersexual individual and maintains "[o]ur conceptions of the nature of gender difference shape, even as they reflect, the ways we structure our social system and polity; they also shape and reflect our understanding of our physical bodies."[72] Then she adds how gender assumptions affects the scientific study of sex by presenting the research of intersexuals by John Money et al., and she concludes that "they never questioned the fundamental assumption that there are only two sexes, because their goal in studying intersexuals was to find out more about 'normal' development."[73] She also mentions the language the doctors use when they talk with the parents of the intersexuals. After describing how the doctors inform parents about the intersexuality, she asserts that because the doctors believe that the intersexuals are actually male or female, they tell the parents of the intersexuals that it will take a little bit more time for the doctors to determine whether the infant is a boy or a girl. That is to say, the doctors' behavior is formulated by the cultural gender assumption that there are only two sexes. Lastly, she maintains that the differences in the ways in which the medical professionals in different regions treat intersexual people also give us a good example of how sex is socially constructed.[74] In her book, titled Sexing the body: gender politics and the construction of sexuality, she introduces the following example: A group of physicians from Saudi Arabia recently reported on several cases of XX intersex children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a genetically inherited malfunction of the enzymes that aid in making steroid hormones. [...] In the United States and Europe, such children, because they have the potential to bear children later in life, are usually raised as girls. Saudi doctors trained in this European tradition recommended such a course of action to the Saudi parents of CAH XX children. A number of parents, however, refused to accept the recommendation that their child, initially identified as a son, be raised instead as a daughter. Nor would they accept feminizing surgery for their child. [...] This was essentially an expression of local community attitudes with [...] the preference for male offspring.[75] Thus it may be said that determining the sex of children is actually a cultural act, and the sex of children is in fact socially constructed.[74] Therefore, it is possible that although sex seems fixed and only related to biology, it may be actually deeply related to historical and social factors as well as biology and other natural sciences. |
About us|Jobs|Help|Disclaimer|Advertising services|Contact us|Sign in|Website map|Search|
GMT+8, 2015-9-11 21:55 , Processed in 0.138099 second(s), 16 queries .
