Generally, when a child is born intersexually, doctors assure the parents that they will be able to “identify the ‘true’ sex that lies underneath the surface confusion. Once they do, their hormonal and surgical treatments can complete nature’s intention” (Fausto-Sterling, p. 50); they claimed that although biological factors influence the course of human sexuality, social learning is much more powerful and effective. Therefore, doctors insist that early genital surgery is imperative because “our conceptions of 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 physical bodies” (Fausto-Sterling, p. 3). They believe a child’s body parts have to match his/her assigned sex since the child’s psychological schema develops in performance with his/her body image. Before the 1970s, most theorists held the belief that biological sex determined one’s gender.
Gender identity refers to how one views, understands and accepts one self’s perceived sex. They have a sense of self as male or female and adapt the prescribed sex to their identity. Biological sex and gender is systematized, instead of the “natural” relationship between sex and gender identity, in every society, a system is in place which converts sex to gender. Although sex and gender are related, it is not the same. Carl Linnaeus believed sexuality was the key to classification, and became interested in finding and analyzing sex (and gender) differences. He assigned sex to plants by the number of plant stamens (male parts) which determined the class it was in, while the number of pistils (female parts) determined its order; and of course class stands above order. Linnaeus’ interest in plant sexuality focused on the male parts; the identity and nature of the female parts were unchallenged. Even stamen, which had once been thought to be idle and not required in the flowers was “now seen as male, were [considered] ‘most noble’ and performed an essential role in generation” (Schiebinger, p. 21). Even during the sexing of bees, the ruler of a beehive, the monarch had to be male; it was not by the biological act of giving birth, but by the position it held. Materialistic theories grounded sex differences in the structure of the human body so Linnaeus focused on sexuality as being the most significant division and sex organs as the most important organs. Science goes hand in hand with the making and remaking of sexuality and identity. But research on sexuality will remain constrained if people continue to accept the idea that the body (nature) is the fundamental precursor to behavior.
Sexual orientation is a reflection of one’s sexual and emotional feelings toward people of the same or opposite gender. Gender identity does not necessarily mean a certain sexual orientation- sexual orientation has multiple dimensions- social, behavioral, chronological and individual. While humans believe heterosexuality is the “norm” nature proves this false. Homosexuality has both biological and social or cultural dimensions that are interconnected and inseparable. Various forms of homosexuality and transgender are found in nature. In animals, homosexuality is not treated differently or received more or less attention from other animals in their society, “animals that participate in same-sex behaviors are not treated to adverse reactions from the majority” (Bagemihl, p. 53). Actually, in numerous animals, while same-sex activity is either disregarded or subjected to little or no harassment, “male-female copulations are regularly harassed and interrupted by surrounding animals” (Bagemihl, p. 55). The transgender animals have higher status in population, and more successful than other animals in obtaining sex partners. The prevailing view is an overly simplistic one: “if homosexuality is believed to occur in animals, it is considered to be ‘natural’ and therefore acceptable in humans; if it is thought not to occur in animals, it is considered ‘unnatural’ and therefore unacceptable in humans” (Bagemihl, p. 76). Now, sex researchers and doctors view homosexuality not as a sexual problem but as a normal sexual variant.
Every society has certain ideas and expectations concerning women and men, and how women and men should behave in various situations. These ideas and expectations are learned from families, friends, leaders, religious and cultural institutions, school, media, etc. Because of gender roles and behaviors people are taught, women and men experience different inequalities and stereotypes. Men are usually seen as the head and breadwinner of the family; strong, rational, sexually active; and have difficulty in expressing their emotions. Women on the other hand are generally seen as being dependant and subject to a male commander (father, husband, etc); weak, emotional and irrational, sexually passive or uninterested; wants to get married, start a family and be a housewife.
Whether employed or not, wives generally do more household labor (meal preparation, dishes, ironing/washing, etc) than husbands. There are two explanations for this; the first is that wives are seen “as individual with little personal power (low income and low job status) so they are relegated to doing menial tasks… The second explanation for why wives do more household labor than husbands is that the performance of household labor matches an internalized standard of ‘femininity,’ and identifying oneself as a woman means doing ‘woman type’ things” (Kurdek, p. 583). It was said that nature, “assigned to women the tender cares owing to infancy, household details, and the sweet anxieties of maternity” (Schiebinger, p. 179). Women are also said to be “naturally inclined to motherhood, to bonding with their babies, to nurturance, patience, and generosity” (Angier, p. 399). But this is not restricted to only women, they are generally more affectionate with their babies because they spend more time with them, not because of innate tendencies.
The individual with more resources like education, earnings, occupational prestige, uses those resources to negotiate his/her way out of housework. When there is a smaller gap between husbands’ and wives’ earnings, the division of household labor was more equal. The perception of fairness explains that “the more power and resources a person has the more likely he or she is to view and unequal division of household labor as unfair” (Kurdek, p. 313). Heterosexual couples allocate household labor according to gender, called segregation pattern, where one partner does the bulk of the household labor. Gay couples follow a balance pattern where each partner is responsible for equal number of tasks, which is distributed in task performance, skill, interest, etc. Lesbian couples on the other hand follow the equality patter, where they divide household labor equally and do tasks together or take turns doing the tasks. The performance of household labor to personal power and gender role orientation works only for married heterosexual couples. Although gender in heterosexual relationships “provides an efficient way of assigning tasks and roles, it typically does so at the expense of change, innovation and choice by depriving women of power and status” (Kurdek, p. 590). The wives are usually unemployed, have low personal income and symptoms of depression and distress.
Boys also face a serious problem from gender stereotyping. Boys are taught from an early age that they should be stoic, stable, and never show any weaknesses; false self, extreme daring, attraction to violence; imperative to feel that they want to achieve status, dominance, and power; and lastly, they are prohibited from expressing feelings or urges seen as “feminine”- like dependence, warmth, empathy. They constrain themselves and hide their true feelings to conform to society’s expectations in order to remove themselves from feelings society says is “unacceptable.” Boys are taught to conceal their emotions and true self to fit in and “hide behind a mask, and use it to hide his deepest thoughts and feelings- his real self- from everyone, even the people closest to him. This mask of masculinity enables [him] to make a bold statement to the world: ‘I can handle it. Everything’s fine. I am invincible’” (Pollack, p. 5). They feign self-confidence, and hide feelings of vulnerability, powerlessness and/or isolation. Freud claimed that while women do not need to pull themselves away to achieve womanhood, “if men are to find autonomy, they must denounce femininity” (Angier, p. 48) and reject their mother. By making them feel ashamed about their feelings, and separating them emotionally from their mother at an early age can have serious consequences. Society’s traumatizing pressure on boys to disconnect from their vulnerable inner selves can result in depression, trouble at school, fighting with friends, using drugs or abuse alcohol, attention deficit disorder, and using physical violence. This idea, the “boy code” has been ingrained in society for so long, people are unaware of it, and unwittingly adhere to the boy code.
Gender roles still exist because from early ages of childhood, friends, family and school, instill these beliefs and society reinforces it through gender stereotyping and the enforcement of rigid expectations for gender-appropriate behavior. People who try to transgress gender roles frequently experience disapproval and discrimination. Prejudice and discrimination amounts to prejudging and treating others poorly based on their group membership. In the eighteenth century, the theory of men and women being complementary to each other attempted to extract “competition with hierarchy over each other by defining them as opposites, each perfect through radically different and for that reason suited to separate social spheres” (Schiebinger, p. 146). But this only caused more separation of differences, which makes it harder to relate to each other and objectify the other group less.
By dissociation, people rarely experience emotional conflict over discrimination of others, including animals; since “in general, people give more consideration to others who are perceived as similar to themselves than to those who are perceived as dissimilar” (Plous p. 523), which is the Similarity Principle. Consumptive practices are dissociated from the infliction of pain by using euphemisms for killing the animals, which is comparable to when categories develop rhetoric to dominate the other groups, using myths and stereotypical stories. People also find it difficult to eat or buy animal products that resembles the live animal so body parts like eyes, face, brain, heads and foots are rarely marketed; which is similar to when categories are polarized and separated since it would be harder to objectify the people if they could relate. From childhood, Americans are taught that farm animals lead untroubled lives; they deny that animals feel pain, and believe they prefer being used. The one factor that interlocks all the oppression is that “they take both active forms that we can see and embedded forms that members of dominant group are taught not to see” (McIntosh, p. 105). There is a need to acknowledge unseen dimensions because it is not only the intentional, individual acts of discrimination and cruelty, but also the invisible systems conferring unsought dominance on certain groups.
For centuries, white males made people believe their race and gender makes them superior to those who are different. Male human beings “build whole cultures around the idea that penis-envy is ‘natural’ to women- though having such an unprotected organ might be said to make men vulnerable and the power to give birth makes womb-envy at least logical” (Steinem, p. 428). Basically, whatever characteristics the powerful dominating group has are thought to be better than the characteristics of the powerless, no matter what the logic is. The dominant group first marks whatever characteristic with a coming of age celebration; the men use it to exclude women from involvement in government, careers, religion, etc. Media, TV, newspapers, and movies treat the subject at length, and can be related only to men. The less dominant group is then taught to fear what they do not have, and exaggerate the disadvantages of what they lack.
Sexual oppression also cuts across other kinds of oppression and privilege. Privilege is an unearned advantage and conferred dominance giving permission to control because of one’s race or sex. Many white students do not think racism affects them since they do not consider “whiteness” a racial identity; “many men likewise think that women’s studies does not bear on their own existence because they are not female; they don’t see themselves as having gendered identities” (McIntosh, p. 103). They are oblivious to their privileged state, which further reinforces hierarchical realities of our society. Unwillingness to reject their privilege not only subordinates and oppresses people, but also reinforces and enhances their status of their dominance.
This assignment helped me understand the differences and relationships between gender roles, biological sex, gender identity and sexual orientation. In order for gender roles to change, social institutions of our society must also be altered. It is solely the product of society in that they promote desirable behaviors and beliefs which are incompatible with the realities of individual personalities and can cause pain and stress for many people, as do other forms of oppression and stereotyping. The current gender role stereotyping has many negative consequences for all people in our society and has yet to exhibit any positive effects; it stands to reason that when such an incredible force for oppression is removed from our lives, it can only benefit every one involved. Since gender roles are socially constructed, it proves that these roles are not universal and immutable, but that there is hope for change.
References
Angier, N. (1999). Woman: An intimate geography. New York: Anchor.
Bagemihl, B. (1999). Biological exuberance: Animal homosexuality and natural diversity. New York: St. Martin’s Press, pp. 43-121.
Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). Sexing the body: Gender politics and the construction of sexuality. New York: Basic Books, pp. 31-77, 170-194.
Kurdeck, L.A. (1998). The allocation of household labor in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married couples. In D.L. Anselmi & A.L. Law (Eds.), Questions of Gender (pp. 582-591). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
McIntosh, P. (1998). White privilege and male privilege. In M.L. Andersen & P. Hill Collins (Eds.), Race, Class and Gender: An anthology (3/e). Boston: Wadsworth, pp. 94-105.
Plous, S. (2003). Understanding prejudice and discrimination. Boston: McGraw-Hill, pp. 507-536.
Pollack, W. (1998). Real boys. New York: Henry Holt, pp. 3-64, 272-337.
Schiebinger, L. (1993). Nature’s body: Gender in the making of modern science. Boston: Beacon, pp. 11-39, 143-183.
Steinem, G. (1998). If men could menstruate. In M.L. Andersen & P. Hill Collins (Eds.), Race,
Class and Gender: An anthology (3/e). Boston: Wadsworth, pp. 428-429