In an earlier post, Go Terps argues it is worth acknowledging the progress society has made in regards to racial and gender equality. G.T. makes the claim that society is constantly improving and that, “There will always be problems that individuals will find in the structure of society, but it will get better in time.” Although I agree with some of the arguments, I disagree with the claim that “our society has been flexible.” G.T.’s argument highlights evidence of extensive social progress in regards to gender and race yet the article fails to mention the massive struggle required to create that change. Did these changes happen overnight with little resistance? I argue that society has been inflexible and has been considerably unyielding to change. I will show the extent to which certain movements have been directly responsible for initiating change. Furthermore, I will provide evidence of situations that indicate how little we have progressed, and how much further we have to go to reach social equality. . Malcolm X, 1925 – 1965 Although we now have a black president, consider the road it took to get here and the racial inequality still seen in contemporary society. The issue of racial segregation provides one example. Legally sanctioned racial segregation was in force for 89 years after the abolition of slavery. Should we applaud ourselves because segregation was eventually abolished, blacks were eventually given the right to vote, and we eventually elected a black president after 43 white presidents? I do not want to understate the significance of these positive outcomes, but the fact that it took so long and the fact that it was such a hard fought battle suggests a serious problem. The murders of Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and Medgar Evers (among hundreds of others) were not a result of a flexible society that encourages change. Total racial equality has not been achieved. According to data from the U.S census, on average, white salaries are $15,000 higher per year then black salaries. The lifetime chances of a white man or woman going to prison are 2.5%, while the chances of a black person going to prison are 16.2%. These statistics are alarming and provide evidence that society still has a great deal of progress to make before achieving racial equality. Harvey Bernard Milk, 1930 – 1978 In terms of LGBTQ equality, Go Terps brings attention to certain advances, such as the legalization of gay marriage, gay pride days in elementary schools and other examples. The reality is that G.T.’s examples represent relatively superficial changes, and the LGBTQ community still faces massive hardship in society. The fact that only five states have legalized same sex marriage is clear evidence that our “constantly improving society” has not yet turned the corner. The gay rights movement has met fierce resistance from the religious right and our government. In Randy Shilt’s book, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, he describes the story of the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California. Milk ran for political office three times before eventually being elected as city supervisor in 1977. Milk fought tooth and nail for gay rights and specifically opposed a political group that sought to make it illegal to be an openly gay educator in California. As depicted in the 2008 biographic film, Milk was eventually assassinated for his beliefs. This example illustrates the backlash that can result during the pursuit of social change. In order to appreciate the progress that has been made for social equality, we must recognize the battles that have been fought and the sacrifices that have been made. Our society has been extremely intolerant to change, but that should not dissuade us from fighting and campaigning for equality. What Go Terps fails to understand is that it is not a given that society will constantly improve. We should refrain from patting ourselves on the back for the social progress we have achieved because it can lead to complacency and our job is not finished. We must recognize and resist the injustices still faced by many groups and realize that more work is required to provide social equality for everyone.. ~ FLP
4 Comments
How would you feel if you were called a slut? No one would be happy if they were called a slut, especially if a man is the one who delivers the insult to a woman. No girl wants a bad reputation. In an article based on her book, Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation,” Leora Tanenbaum talks about a double standard women face every day. The article points out that before the age of 18 over half of all girls in the United States have had sex, while according to a New York Times poll, 53% of girls said sex before marriage is “always wrong.” Nearly three quarters of boys engage in sex at least once before the age of 18, but only 41% of guys think sex before marriage is “always wrong.” In high school most girls engage in sex to fit in, but once they have sex their peers bash them. A lot of girls are judged harshly based on their promiscuity. When I was in high school I only knew of a few girls who had sex. Most of my classmates wanted to wait until marriage. The few girls who did have sex were called rollers and sluts. Many guys saw these girls as easy, but this is of course a double standard. In high school boys often face pressure when it comes to having sex as well. In contrast to the experiences of many women, if a guy is a virgin when he is 18, people may think he is gay or inept. Guys often boast about having many sex partners so they can be seen as cool. But if guys can sleep around, why can’t girls? In her article, Tanenbaum recounts how one high school dealt with a huge controversy regarding sex among its teen students. At this particular school, many girls were found giving boys oral sex in parties and public parks. Reports about this in the media depicted the girls as promiscuous. The school responded immediately by calling the girls’ parents. Many girls were “reeducated” about teen sex because of this scandal, but what about the boys? The boys at this school did not receive any media attention, they did not receive any punishment by the school, their parents were not called, and they were not “reeducated.” Why did the girls face trouble while the boys received pats on the head? Adults called the girls sluts, and the boys were told that they were just acting like boys. If you think about it, things have been this way for a long time in the United States. I recently saw the documentary, Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes. In it, women were walking around in bikinis, but as they walked they were faced with men grabbing them as if they were merely objects. . In a lot of hip hop music videos, along with cars, jewelry and money, women are seen as material objects that men simply acquire in order to feel successful. One day when society becomes less male dominated, maybe women will receive the respect they deserve. ~ Chellebell This essay is written in response to Go Terps remarks about how we are constantly making changes in order to make things right in our society. She provocatively states: “There will always be problems that individuals will find in the structure of society, but it will get better in time. It is a process. We are only human and mistakes happen, but it seems like our society is constantly practicing trial and error until we get it right. Our social structure has already changed immensely over time, and this should be acknowledged for what it is — very impressive.” It is true that our society is changing. However, we should not assume that those changes are necessarily good. What is truly important is not change but the kind of change that happens. Go Terps brought up interesting areas in which changes are occurring but fails to demonstrate how these changes will eradicate the gender related problems in our society. In the 2005 film TransGeneration, we see how difficult it was for transgendered students to discuss their gender with new friends and colleagues. It took them a whole lot of courage to openly explore issues related to their identities and how they feel as human beings. Lets take for instance one of the characters, Raci, who transitioned from male to female. Even though she was born with male genitalia, she didn’t feel that she was a man. She couldn’t live the norms associated with our social construction of gender. She struggled emotionally and physically with how people perceived her, and it was only after the transformation of her gender from man to woman that she was able to live and feel comfortable. This is an example of how problematic our social construction of gender is. I think it is important to be able to live according to how we feel about ourselves and not necessarily by the demands of others. . I feel it is imperative to allow individuals to explore their own identities. We are all created differently by God and have different aspirations in life. And if we want to impose onto others a rigid definition of what constitutes an appropriate gender, then people will suffer. It is important to realize that no matter how we construct gender, there will always be deviations. Therefore, what needs to change is rigidity. A “constantly improving” society is one which demolishes rigid gender categories. In a recent online post entitled “The Social Construction of Gender,” the author writes that the construction of gender “reveals that gender is not immutable or set in stone. Harmful aspects of our construction of gender can and should be discarded. But beyond that, if gender exists to support hierarchy, then gender, as it is viewed and practiced in our culture, is not only uncomfortable for many people, but a tool of oppression.” This post suggests that gender is not constant and the way we construct it is often offensive or distasteful to others who do not identify with the social construction. As long as we continue to have a rigid gender system, then the system will need to change. Again, the problem is the rigidity of the system, and this is precisely what Go Terps fails to understand. ~ Wenty In this essay, I would like to argue that Lady Lazarus is wrong about how problematic our society is in terms of being "catalogued and ranked" by a rigid gender category. She states, “gender also creates a stratification system within our society which gives men a higher status than women. In order to eradicate these issues, we need to rethink our rigid ideas about gender and recognize that more than two types of gender are possible.” I believe that our society makes changes and adjustments whenever an issue arrises. Our ideas are not so rigid, and in fact, they are constantly changing. Lady Lazarus does not give our society enough credit by acknowledging how much we have improved. I believe our society has been flexible, and while there may be some problems, our society has the capacity for reform. We are constantly changing, reevaluating our norms, and improving. There will always be problems that individuals will find in the structure of society, but it will get better in time. It is a process. We are only human and mistakes happen, but it seems like our society is constantly practicing trial and error until we get it right. Our social structure has already changed immensely over time, and this should be acknowledged for what it is – very impressive. In the book Manliness and Civilization, Gail Bederman writes about the history of white men lynching blacks. For instance, if a black man had relations with a white woman the black man would be hung. These actions by white men were normative in the past and were accepted. Currently, these sorts of behaviors are rare and forbidden. Our society has realized how barbaric lynching is and has made drastic changes for the better. Today, blacks and whites commingle daily and are equal under law. Furthermore, there are now interracial relationships and marriages that occur constantly and that are widely accepted. Lastly, we even have a black president which would have never happened in the past. In the past, our society was not accepting of homosexuals. Most individuals were afraid to come out of the closet because they might be killed and they were afraid they would bring shame to their families. I am not saying that our society has become extremely accepting of homosexuality, but it is improving. Recent discussions have arisen about incorporating education on homosexuality in elementary schools. For example, a few schools in New York and Massachusetts incorporated a “Gay and Lesbian Pride” day for elementary students where they openly talked to elementary school children about gay and lesbian families. In the past homosexuality was never discussed or brought up in front of children because it was believed to be inappropriate. Furthermore, several states have begun discussing same sex marriages and some states have even passed laws allowing these marriages. Also, in some doctors offices one can find “transvestite” as a gender category on patient registration forms, and it was recently reported that changing rooms and bathrooms at New York Universtiy are now being designated as gender-neutral. Our society is beginning to realize that it is unfair to ban openly gay and lesbian people from enlisting in the army, and President Obama is now trying to pass a law to this effect. These examples demonstrate that society is changing, although it is a process. Another issue in the past which is now changing is the way women are discriminated against. In the book Queer theory, Gender Theory, by Riki Wilchins, she discusses the position of women in society when she was in elementary school. “This was a time when girls didn’t grow up to go into politics, practice medicine, work construction jobs, become soldiers, or play rock and roll. Nor did they jog, play basketball or pump iron” (6). She also states that women “were considered socially and psychologically incomplete until they had a man to marry, bear children with and make a home for” (6). I would argue that this social system is completely different now. We have female politicians, doctors, soldiers, and more. According to the United States Department of Labor, in 2008 “women accounted for 51 percent of all workers in high-paying management, professional and related occupations.” Our society has managed to change from one with relatively few women laborers to one where the majority of high-paid management and professional positions are held by women. President Obama is even trying to pass a law that ensures women receive the same amount of money as men for comparable jobs. Furthermore, in our society women no longer have to get married and have children if they don’t want to. It is becoming less of a social norm. As you can see, our society has made drastic changes. Society is constantly adjusting in an effort to make everyone equal and to make life fair. Of course it is a process and our society has its problems, but we are constantly evolving and trying to change for the better. Our socially constructed system keeps improving and perhaps the generations to come will not have to worry about the issues our society is dealing with now. If you compare our past to the system we have today, it is plain to see we have come a long way. ~ Go Terps In order to explore the ways in which the concept “gender” structures contemporary society, I will first discuss how gender is constructed. I will also address how a binary system of gender is maintained in society and the problems that consequently arise from this organization. To do so, I will use an intersectional lens to illustrate how gender interacts with other socially constructed categories. In her essay, “The Social Construction of Gender”, Judith Lorber opens up with a metaphor about gender, stating that “talking about gender for most people is the equivalent of fish talking about water” (13). The main point she is trying to make by using such a metaphor is that gender is everywhere. It is so pervasive in our society it seems natural and most individuals make the assumption “it is bred into our genes” (13). Lorber does not accept this idea of naturalness, but instead posits that gender is a socially constructed category. The construction of gender starts as early as the womb. Once parents are informed of a child’s sex, they buy gender-typed toys and paint their child’s bedroom in a gender appropriate color. Gender is not natural or inherent and thus should not be thought of in terms of biology. Instead, gender can be regarded as a historical and ideological process. Ideas about gender change over time and what may be considered masculine or feminine in this century will likely be different in the next. Baby Franklin D. Roosevelt The image of Franklin D. Roosevelt as a child on the cover of Life Magazine can be used as a prime example of how the definition of masculinity has changed over time. When the image was shown to our class, most people assumed that it was of a girl because the child was wearing a lacy dress and mary janes. By today’s standards, this type of dress would be considered feminine, but during the time in which the photograph was taken, this was normal apparel for little boys. In the chapter, “Learning Gender in a Diverse Society”, Susan Shaw and Janet Lee discuss how making gender seem natural is key to upholding a stratification system within our society which gives men higher status in relation to women. Shaw and Lee state that “the differences between femininity (passive, dependent, intuitive, emotional) and masculinity (strong, independent, in control, out of touch emotionally) are made to seem natural” (126). In society, masculine traits are given greater value and since masculinity is often equated with maleness, males are given higher status than women. Shaw and Lee define gender as a “process by which certain behaviors and performances are ascribed to women and men” or in other words, gender “can be understood as the social organization of sexual difference” (124). This idea that gender has been socially constructed has been a pervasive argument within feminist discourse because if gender is not intrinsic or biological, then gender as a social institution can be restructured. With this said, an important question to consider is, if we have constructed gender then why does it look the way it does? The answer to this question is power. The idea of power addresses both how gender is maintained in contemporary society and also why this structure is problematic. The way that gender is constructed in contemporary society highlights hegemonic masculinity and emphasized femininity. In her article “Hegemonic Masculinity and Emphasized Femininity”, R.W. Connell states that “hegemonic masculinity is always constructed in relation to subordinated masculinities and femininities” (183). Women as a whole are subordinate to men, but within the male population, there is a division or hierarchy of masculinities. The basis for division is based on various categories including sexuality, sexual orientation, race etc. The main problem with this system of categorization is that every individual assumes the role of both victim and oppressor. As Patricia Hill Collins states in her essay “Toward a New Vision”, “each one of us derives varying amounts of penalty and privilege from the multiple systems of oppression that frame our lives” (69). Caster Semenya Another major problem lies in the way that society assigns gender. Males are taught that they should prescribe to masculine traits while females are taught to act in a feminine manner. In a society that gives higher value to masculine traits, males are given higher status than women. Also, when individuals transgress gender boundaries, there can be severe consequences for their behavior. Take for example the case of South African runner Caster Semenya. Caster outran her competition in the 800 meter world championships by more than two seconds. This coupled with her masculine physique caused people to call Caster’s sex into question. Caster was subjected to several “gender tests”, media scrutiny, and ridicule. This really took a toll on Caster’s psychological health and at one point she was even on suicide watch. As we can see, our society's binary categorization system of gender is problematic for several reasons. By structuring gender the way we do, individuals are forced to abide by prescribed sets of behaviors or face consequences if they transgress these boundaries. Gender also creates a stratification system within our society which gives men a higher status than women. In order to eradicate these issues, we need to rethink our rigid ideas about gender and recognize that more than two types of gender are possible. ~ Lady Lazarus Although it may be ideal for a child to be raised as gender aschematic, I believe deterring any gender stereotypes in our society is just not realistic. Even if parents do everything to resist acting in gendered ways, there are too many other outlets that expose children to gender categorization. I agree with Lady Lazarus in her recent remarks about Sandra Bem's gender schema theory: parents will not be able to censor the gender information their children receive at school. Besides school, children will experience gender categorization in other public places when they begin to realize all the commonalities that their peers of the same sex have with one another which are the result of a gender schema. I do acknowledge that being gender aschematic can lead to being socially androgynous which does have positive aspects for the individual mentioned by Sandra Bem and Lady Lazarus. Some of these aspects mentioned were that men would have more egalitarian views of women and other men while women could essentially have fewer mental issues and higher levels of self esteem. Also, parents who are not strongly gendered may lead to the child eventually becoming less gender typed themselves which brings about individuality. The children will not be following the gendered norms because they have created their own identity and could possibly create their own categorization that could lead to societal benefits. Eventually, this may lead to the end of gender schemas if enough children were raised this way in an ideal world. However, these are only possibilities and not definite outcomes. I believe this would be nearly impossible because of the gender driven society that we live in. In addition, as experienced by Bem’s son, people who become socially androgynous will still face social issues with their peers which make this style of living difficult. This fact supports my argument that being raised as gender aschematic may actually be more detrimental to the individual. Our society follows these gender categories and acting out of the norm may be difficult for the individual. . An example of the negative responses that people face when they do not fit a gender schema is from “What It Means to be Gendered Me” by Betsy Lucal. Lucal discussed the consequences of her inappropriate “gender display.” Although she is a female, she was gendered as a man because of her physical appearance. One of the specific problems Lucal faced was when women did not want her in women-only spaces and she would have to deal with such discrimination. In this case, Lucal was not raised as gender aschematic, but her situation demonstrates the result of a person who may be socially androgynous in today’s society. Another issue with being raised as gender aschematic is that other people will still place that individual into one of the gender categories in which they seem most closely to fit anyways. As Lucal remarks, people “do” gender for us when we fail to do it. Again, this creates problems for a person raised to be gender aschematic because then they may begin to have issues with identity and interaction because he or she may not have the same values and norms as society. ~ Drizzle Recently I read a paper by Sandra Bem about gender schema theory that I felt was very relevant to the sociology of gender. Bem’s main argument in this paper is that it would be most beneficial for children to be raised in a gender aschematic environment or one without gender stereotypes. In society, gender is a very significant category used for classifying others and is usually the first thing that people notice when meeting others. This process of categorizing people based on sex is also apparent in young children as well. Studies have shown that young children utilize cultural ideas about gender to help determine their own behavior and define their relationships with their peers. Children are subject to gender stereotypes every day, and as Sandra Bem points out, children cannot help but take notice of the different activities and toys that are considered appropriate for boys and those that are considered appropriate for girls. According to Sandra Bem, it is bad for a child’s future development to categorize people based on sex. After weighing the pros and cons, I have decided that I agree with Bem on this issue. I believe that it would be most beneficial for children to be raised as gender aschematic. Before children enter school, their main sources of gender related attitudes and behaviors come from their parents and home life. In order for parents to raise their children in a gender aschematic environment, parents would have resist acting in gendered ways themselves. For example, they would have to divide the household chores evenly among themselves to show their children that housework is not just women’s work. Parents would also have to prevent kids from using gender categories by choosing gender-neutral colors and toys as well as shielding children from outside gender-typing. I feel that this goal of raising gender aschematic children would be very difficult, but achievable. I think that parents would face the most difficulty when their children start school. At this point, the parents cannot watch their children around the clock and censor the information that their child is receiving. In society, there are gender stereotypes everywhere and it is unlikely that children will remain completely unaffected. Even as impossible as this may seem, research has shown that children who are raised by parents who are not strongly gender typed grow up to be less gender typed themselves.
By raising children to be gender aschematic, it is likely that they will also be socially androgynous; meaning that they will have both masculine and feminine traits. This can be good and bad. On the one hand, boys who have both masculine and feminine traits later have more egalitarian views about men and women and are usually much more understanding of women. It is also beneficial for girls to be androgynous because women with masculine traits have higher levels of self-esteem and fewer mental health issues. I also believe that without gender stereotypes, children would feel freer to follow their true interests without feeling pressure to act in a manner that society has deemed appropriate for their gender. The downside to adopting Sandra Bem’s ideas on child-rearing would be that children may face problems assimilating with their peers, who may misunderstand the philosophy behind their social androgyny. For example, on Bem’s son’s first day of school, he wore barrettes and many little boys asked him if he was a boy or a girl. Just to restate my main argument, I believe that it is detrimental for children to use gender as a category to organize their own behavior and to define their relationships with others. I believe that it would be most beneficial for children to be raised as gender aschematic. ~ Lady Lazarus |
AuthorsThe Class Blog Project, or CBP, is a blog featuring undergraduate students forming a critical dialogue with each other around ideas related to the sociology of gender. Archives
May 2010
Categories
All
|