Gender Definition
When studying "gender," the first task is to clearly define what it
is
not. Gender simply can not be defined by one's anatomy. In other words,
gender
is not categorized as male or female. Stating this fact is of the
utmost
importance, because most people would define gender in such a way. In
fact, some
dictionaries actually define gender as "See sex." So now that I
have
withdrawn that determinant, I must conclude that gender is something
which is
determined socially. Unfortunately, the concept is far too broad to
have one
clear definition. It can be studied in so many different ways, and
it is because
of this that there are a multitude of theories about it.
Learning about
differing theories stimulates one's own beliefs about gender
and its usefulness.
Every sociology litterateur is aware of the
socialization theory. Socialization
and the study of gender are often linked.
In terms of gender, the socialization
theory suggests that children are
taught to behave a certain way according to
their sex. Boys are taught to be
masculine and girls to be feminine. For
example, parents will often buy boys
trucks or army toys and for girls, they
will buy dolls and playhouse sort-of
toys. Boys are played with in a rough
manner and are taught to "tough it out"
when they get hurt. Girls are
taught to be more passive and expressive of
their feelings. Also, children learn
by observing their parents and the roles
that they play. Girls love pretending
to be the "mommy." Chores are also
divided. Those chores that are more
"masculine" are for the boys such as
taking out the trash and raking
leaves. Girls help in the kitchen and with
cleaning. The socialization theory is
accepted by many, but it does not
account for everything. This theory is
limiting in that it doesnot allow one
to study gender in a macro sense. This
theory cannot explain why or how
gender came about. It also doesn't provide an
answer for how gender
inequality began or how it can be minimized. Many
theorists take the
socialization theory and expand on it. One of the most unique
theories on
gender comes from Judith Lorber, a professor of sociology. Lorber's
book,
"Paradoxes of Gender," introduces her idea of gender being a
social
institution. Lorber views gender inequality from this perspective. It
is
difficult to explain all aspects of Lorber's theory without sounding
repetitive,
because so much is interrelated. She critiques all of the popular
beliefs about
gender. Gender is not the assumptions or beliefs about males
and females; it is
not the roles that males and females play; it is not male
and female status; it
is certainly not anatomy, and it is not strictly
socialization. "Gender is
a social structure that has its origins in the
development of human culture, not
in biology or procreation. + As is true of
other institutions, gender's
history can be traced, its structure examined,
and its changing effects
researched." (Lorber, p.1) LLorber does not view
gender at the individual
level, but rather as a social construction that
establishes norms for
individuals which are built into the major societal
organizations. The
development of gender inequality is the main focus of
Lorber's discussion of
gender. According to Lorber, roles are gendered.
Either sex can participate in
opposite gendered roles. The problem is that
males are expected to be masculine
and women to be feminine. Those jobs that
are more feminine have lower statuses,
thus lower pay. So we now begin to see
where inequality comes into play. An
interesting point that Lorber makes
about this is that women are to blame for
this as well as men. When a woman
chooses to go into a female-dominated field,
she is perpetuating inequality
by contributing to masculinism. However, when a
female works in a
male-dominated field, she must become a social man. For
example, in the work
force, CEOs are supposed to possess masculine traits. A
female CEO must be
aggressive, dominant, and non-sympathetic. So when females
become social men,
they are looked down upon. Most of these women are thought to
be too
aggressive and unappealing. They have failed at being a
"woman." The same
goes for men in female-dominated jobs, although for
men, there isn't much of
a problem simply because there aren't very many men who
take feminine jobs
due to their lower statuses. Naturally, female-dominated jobs
are seen as
feminine. If a man were to take a female-dominated job, he would be
expected
to act as a social woman. The fact that a person must behave according
to the
gender of his/her job demonstrates the idea of gender
being
institutionalized. The process is known as gender differentiation. So
why don't
more women get into male-dominated jobs? Lorber explains that women
aren't
viewed as having what it takes to be successful in these jobs. Men are
in
positions of power, therefore they will generally hire someone
like
themselves--a man. Another important distinction between Lorber's theory
of
gender and others is that she asks "why" gender inequality exists.
She
has to ask how gender came about in the first place. She gives a
thorough
discussion about the history of gender. According to Lorber, gender
was born in
kinship. When fire was invented, new weapons resulted and hunting
practices
changed. This new form of hunting required new skills, and this
lead to children
taking longer before they could become members of this
group. An increased in
food meant that fertility increased and more children
lived. This lead to the
division of labor between child-minders and
non-child-minders. Logically, the
women were the child-minders and would
gather and process food and hides and
make the necessary tools.
Non-child-minders *males* would make their weapons and
hunt for food. It was
not women's anatomy/biology that made them more nurturing
than man, but
rather their anatomy placed them into a more nurturing role.
"There is no
need to posit special 'killer' or 'maternal' instincts in
males and females
to explain the assignment of these roles." *Lorber,
p.128) SSocialization
rooted from the placement of male and females in separate
roles. Females had
to teach other younger females how to be care-takers and
males had to teach
younger males how to hunt. Both roles were vital to the
survival of the
social system. So why is "manly" work valued more
today? This is directly
related to waged and unwaged labor. Unwaged labor is
work done by mostly
women in the home. Childcare, laundry, cooking, and cleaning
are all examples
of unwaged labor. As shown earlier, women were placed in this
type of work
long ago, therefore jobs that have feminine traits such as
nurturing, caring,
and patience are not valued financially. Lorber makes a
strong point that
because gender has been present for so long, we must rethink
everything with
a gender-sensitive lens. Other theorists on gender offer
interesting
perspectives as well. Kate Millett, author of Sexual Politics (1970)
dealt
with male supremacy. She believed that it was socially enforced
through
socialization of early childhood, family restrictions placed on
women, male
tendency toward violence and in other institutions. Millett was
criticized for
not explaining how male supremacy came about historically.
Shulamith Firestone,
author of The Dialectic of Sex (1970), accepted the
traditional idea that male
dominance was natural. She agreed with Millett in
that male supremacy was
socially enforced, but that its roots are with the
biological family. Firestone
was able to move further than Millett because
she pointed to a certain
institution that caused it-the family. "The family
is the primary
institution through which women participate in this society.
While Firestone
ignored the important fact that women work outside the home,
even working women
give the family their primary allegiance. Wherever a woman
is in this society,
it is the family, and the ideology of the family that
contributes most to
shaping her beliefs and maintaining her oppression."
(P.17) JJuliet
Mitchell, author of Women's Estate (1971), criticized both
Millett and
Firestone. She stated that Firestone's radical feminist
outlook was too
limiting. She states that Millett and Firestone see the
relevance of socialism
but only in terms of the economy. Mitchell urges that
we develop a socialist
theory of women's oppression and of the family. She
analyses the historic
failure of the socialist movement to deal with the
oppression of women. She
urged that we separate the family structures that
compose it: sexuality,
reproduction, and socialization of the young. It was
then portrayed as a natural
institution within which women performed natural
function: sex, childbirth, and
the child-rearing. Mitchell describes the
unity of the family in three ways.
First, it is always formed as an
economic unit. Second, the family's unity is
formed ideologically. And
lastly, she explains that relative autonomy of the
family from history by its
'biosocial' formed the basic mother/father/child
relationship. In this
relationship, within the family, the person is socially
constructed and male
supremacy takes shape. Sheila Rowbotham, author of Woman's
Consciousness,
Man's World, does not believe that believe that men and women are
determined
either by anatomy or economics. She shares Lorber's view that women
were
subordinated to men before capitalism, and that this has affected
the
position of women in capitalist society. She also would agree with Lorber
that
women contribute to their oppression. "Our sexual conditioning means
that
we submit more readily than men to this intolerable state of affairs."
(P.
121) Gender studies lead to a variety of interpretations and
explanations. What
do we gain from them, though? By studying gender, we can
better understand how
to minimize inequality. Some of the theorists believe
that radical means will
result in drastic change. For example, Firestone
believed that if we would be
making major progress if we could somehow
"outgrow nature" and
reproduce outside the womb. Lorber admits that a gender
neutral society is far
too radical of an idea, because it would call for a
complete reorganization of
everything. Every institution would have to be
exactly half male and half
female, lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and
heterosexuals would have to have
everything equal, etc. Even though a
genderless society isn't attainable, I
believe that Lorber would agree that
by being aware of gender inequality, we can
at least change it at the micro
level. This over much time, should decrease the
amount of it at the macro
level. Lorber believes that the first step is to
realize that gender is
everywhere. Every institution is gendered. If people fail
to see that, then
they will not see the whole picture of inequality. This is
best described
using the birdcage effect. The birdcage effect is when only
single events of
oppression are viewed. This single event is represented by one
bar of the
cage. When only one bar is seen, it looks as if the cage is
escapable, but
when you step back and look at all the bars, it is apparent that
the cage is
a trap. According to Lorber, society needs to step back in history
and
rethink it using a gender sensitive lens. By doing this, all the
"bars" will
present themselves and we will realize just how trapped in
gender inequality
we are.