Gender

English 112 section 096
March 29, 1999
An in Depth Analysis of Gender Relationships
Throughout history and in all cultures the roles of males and females vary. Relating to the piece of literature Girl written by Jamaica Kincaid for the time, when women’s roles were to work in the home. By examining gender roles, then one may better understand how women and men interact and how better to build relationships at home and in the world of business. At the time that this work was written, women mainly stayed at home and did housework while few of the very poorest households required the woman to work in an industrial job. Kincaid wrote of the specific roles and responsibilities that a mother would tell her daughter. By what she wrote, one can fully understand what was expected of a woman at that time and in that particular culture.

The object of examining gender roles is to answer the question why should women and men be equal and Are there populations in which men and women are absolutely equal? Are there societies in which women dominate men? (Gender 238) By understanding the culture in which this piece of literature is written, the gender roles and the rules of behavior for a woman, then the relationships between genders can be realized.
The general myth about women and their gender role in the American society is that the mother works in the home and supports her man in every way. For each relationship, the people in that relationship must decide the particular roles that they will play.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

In the literary work Girl, Kincaid shows clearly that the woman’s role in this work was to serve the family and to work mainly in the house. The mother writing this story tells her daughter that this is how you iron your father’s khaki shirt so that it doesn’t have a crease (Kincaid 489). In this marriage, it is understood that the wife is to do the laundry for the husband. Today’s society does not always provide these clear roles since many women work a full time job and the house chores are a responsibility for both to handle. Though the woman is still mainly held responsible for the home. There should be a constant search for equality in gender roles. Kincaid explains how the man is working to bring home the money and the wife supports his work. By her ironing his khaki shirt, he is better prepared for work to support his family. Though men and women are supposedly equal, the roles they must play in a particular relationship may be unequal.
Even though this work does not show a conflict, the girl to whom the mother is speaking may have a conflict with her husband by the time she is married. This mother also may have an internal conflict that is not revealed in the work. Meaning that she may hold in problems that she has with the relationship because women were not supposed to reveal their feelings. Women are usually the ones who are more open in a relationship, but at this time in history women were to keep quiet in relationships (Gender 238).
The conflict that will be revealed in the future is the desire to have the status that is already gained by men. One can understand that men already have a status since the world of business is geared for typical male roles. That is apparent by how many of the mainstream blue-collar jobs and management positions are held by men. The girl to whom this mother is speaking must make sure that she seeks to make a name for herself and to help other women gain status. This is stated in Humanity: Gender:
If so, then modern feminists will need to work to alter this key factor, and in the long term our societies will develop greater equality between the sexes (Gender 238).

Since the purpose of examining gender roles is to create equality, then the conflict is that both sexes are trying to make their particular roles closer to equal than they were before.
In this piece of literature, the mother speaks directly to her daughter telling her what she is to do in order to become a lady. There are many allusions in the literary work citing how the daughter should act in society. Examples are this is how to hem a dress when you see the hem coming down and so to prevent yourself from looking like the slut I know you are so bent on becoming; and this is how you sweep a yard (Kincaid 489). Each culture has specific ways in which people of a specific gender should act. This culture teaches women to make themselves pure and to work diligently for the family. Particularly in the American society, women are taught to make themselves look feminine and to act in a way that keeps them from appearing as a whore or slut. If a father in this culture were to use the same format as this piece then he would write of how to mow the yard and how to take care of the family. This way of teaching children is very essential for a child to fully grow and become an as effective person as their parents or even better. After all, for a mother and father their most important value to teach their children is to become a better person. In becoming a better person, children should grow up to better understand the opposite sex and work to have better working relationships.

Culture reveals the aspects of gender roles and the reasons for why these roles are the way they are and how they are shaped to be this way. In this work, the mother speaking to her daughter relates how she is subordinate to her husband and how the daughter is expected to support her husband. Even though the woman does the housework, women and men together caused this cultural norm. In order for women to gain more independence, then women must take action. This action that will be taken will cause conflict in the future for this daughter. Men will not be able to accept those changes easily but must be taken for there to be equality or at least a better understanding among the sexes. Finally, gender roles are directly related to how a parent teaches his son or her daughter how to follow or change the gender roles.
Human Sexuality Essays

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.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

“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.


Psychology

x

Hi!
I'm Adrienne!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out