Theory of Gender Power and Gender Influence - Research Paper Example

Differentiating between the Terms Sex and Gender is Problematic within Society One of the most pervasive problems in modern society is in coming to an understanding about the differences between sex and gender. Although modern cultures have worked towards making life as a woman an equal state, addressed issues that concern sexual preferences, and has tried to build a world in which everyone has an equal opportunity with no deference to gender, the differentiation between the idea of sex and the idea of gender has created a discourse that is confusing and complicated. The definition of sex is anthropologically defined as the biological difference that is created at conception. The definition of gender is understood to be a construction of culture (Grauer and Stuart-Macadam 1). The idea that there must be a defining line between sex and gender has been fueled by the questions that the theories of feminism have raised within society. Through confusing power with gender, the public discourse in trying to shift the power from a patriarchal society to an society of equality has created a great deal of confusion in trying to make the genders equal in ability and behavior, rather than equal in importance and relevance. As researchers work to identify the differences between sex and gender and create ways to define them in separate spheres of inquiry, the realities of being male and female are lost in attempts to create science out of predetermined outcomes of perceived equality. Identity where it relates to sex is found in the womb where genitalia and hormone indicators are formed which designates the fetus as male or female. There are exceptions to this identifying concept as children are sometimes born with malformations which give them both sexes, or do not correctly identify them towards one sex or another. Grauer and Stuart-Macadam state, however, that “There is a consensus in anthropology that sex is defined by the biological differences between males and females determined in the moment of conception and enhanced in subsequent physiological development” (1). This would seem to be a straight forward definition of the concept of sex. As in all things having to do with sexuality, identifying physically with a sex is not as easy and as straight forward as the definition might suggest. The introduction of those individuals who feel that they are trapped within the body of the wrong gender has opened up the idea that sex is not defined by physiological definitions, but is defined by associative definitions on a physical level. Meyerowitz begins this level of discussion through suggesting that by the mid-twentieth century the idea of sex had moved away from just the physiological features towards a study of hormones and sex chromosomes. The determinants of socially constructed gender identifiers had been eliminated as a source for determining sex as women were breaking barriers and entering the public sphere, creating the understanding that gender was a social construction where sex was a biological designation. It was during this time that sex began to be considered for the ways in which it “signified not only male and female, but also traits, attitudes, and behaviors associated with women and men and with erotic arts” (Meyerowitz 3). The defining lines between sex and gender were formed as biology began to be separated from behavior and the idea of male and female began to be explored through the opening of social doors that had been closed before the 1960s. The defining line between biology and socialization is a blurry line that has yet to be fully developed and solidified. Sexuality is broken down into three categories of inquiry where the biological factors, the behavioral factors, and the erotic factors all require separate study and provided for a great deal of confusion in understanding the many ways in which all three of those aspects of the human existence are experienced. As Meyerowtiz states “we routinely distinguish sex, gender, and sexuality, but we cannot, it seems, seal off the borders” (4). It is a topic of continuing debate on how people who choose gender reassignment surgery should be considered and whether it is a mental issue or a physical issue. That it is called gender reassignment surgery is suggestive of how the medical community leans, but perhaps it is the idea that there is a separation between mental and physical that is the problem. In approaching the idea that there is a difference between sex and gender it is possible that research has been overlooking the most powerful answer in that it is a combination of mental, physical and social elements that is working in concert to create what is masculine and what is feminine. The idea of gender is defined by socialization processes that assign roles and behaviors towards each sex. In other words, girls play with dolls and boys play with trucks because they are socialized towards those types of play. This idea is also complicated because anyone who has played with baby girls and baby boys knows that boys are naturally more aggressive than girls and will more often create destructive behavior that will girls. Therefore, it has to be considered that some forms of play behavior are ‘hard-wired’ into each sex, while others is a part of the socialization that occurs around a child. There is a problem, however, in trying to define the terms sex and gender as having two distinct identities. Even an expert can use it correctly in one instance and incorrectly in another as Grauer and Stuart-Macadam show when Johnson uses the word sex correctly in discussing the separation of Y and X chromosomes, but uses it incorrectly in a later paper when discussing the idea of ‘gender pre-selection’(1). If the term sex is biological and the term gender is social, then they are to be used in very distinct ways, but the problem is in determining how much behavior is biologically driven and which biological functions have been functions of social behavioral development. In trying to separate sex and gender, the combination of both biology and socialization is discounted. Feminism has been responsible for some of the confusion that has developed in the determination of what is male and what is female. According to Bloodsworth-Lugo, “while masculinity has been traditionally conceived as the only logical outcome of male bodies (and femininity of female bodies), feminists mistakenly took the opposing view, claiming no correspondence between sex and gender” (19). In approaching the topic of equality which relates to power, the discourse has been to assume that the power resides in the masculine and in order to prove that power could be held in feminine hands, the decentralization of what is the feminine has been formed around the idea that being a woman does not equal being feminine. The consequence of this system of beliefs is that all feminine qualities are merely socialization and that being female does not mean that there is a natural association towards feminine roles and attitudes. Therefore, the power in the patriarchal system can be attained by women as they deny their nature as feminine and embrace what is masculine. The problem with this debate is that patriarchal societies are not empowered by masculinity; rather males are empowered through patriarchal social structures. The fight that feminists have taken on in trying to prove that women can compete in a male dominated world has been the angle that has sought to deny or denigrate the nature of the feminine to the point that being female can be reconfigured into a version of being male. The conversation has adapted to this idea, suggesting that being biologically female is not the same as being engendered as female. Johnson states that “by focusing on how we participate in the patriarchal order, feminism challenges us live in new ways, to question assumptions about gender and human nature, and to confront the everyday realities of male privilege and the oppression of women” (102). Questioning these concepts is a valid and worthy way in which to study the idea of sex and gender, however the question of power is not the same as the question of gender. This confusion can be observed through the work of Barbara J. Risman who states in her abstract of a paper on gender and society that “we need to conceptualize gender as a social structure, and by doing so, we can better analyze the ways in which gender is embedded in the individual, interactional, and institutional dimensions of our society” (429). Through this formula of thinking, gender is situated only within the social structure and the ideas of biological constraints on gender meaning are no longer a part of the discussion. She goes on to say that “while concern with intersectionality must continue to be paramount, different structures of inequality have different constructions and perhaps different influential causal mechanisms at any given historical moment”. While Risman has equated inequality as being relevant to social constructions, she has continued the confusion on the association of gender to sex in relationship to the discussion of power within society. The power structure that designates women as subservient or as beneath the male gender in the control of society is not the same as a discussion on gender as it relates to what is masculine and what is feminine. To combine these two discussions, that of power and of gender, is to determine that gender has relevance to power rather than society has constructed itself to have relevance to power. Being male does not mean having control over society, neither through socialization of male roles nor through the biological aspects of the male sex. Socializing male roles to have power will give society a patriarchal system. As a rudimentary example, to socialize the male as the protector of a family because he has the physiology to hold and throw a spear is not the same as socializing him to be in control over the women of the group because he has the physiology to hold a spear. Socializing power is not the same as socializing gender. Gender is a very important aspect of human life. According to Lorber “Gender is one of the major ways that human beings organize their lives”. The drives of sex, however, should not be separated from the socialization of gender, the two done in a harmony that is intended from one basic purpose: that of procreation. Biological drives provide a framework in which mating is accomplished with socialization playing a part in how those drives manifest within society. To separate the two so that one is defined from the other is to confuse the issue of sexuality. Through creating differentiations between the idea of sex as a biological inquiry and gender as a social inquiry is to suggest that they are not intrinsically linked. The fact that they are so frequently made interchangeable suggests that they should no longer be definable from different perspectives of study. An example can be seen through the idea of being coy. A woman can use the idea of being coy in order to attract the attention of a man. In discussing sex and gender, it might be that she is being coy through a socialized methodology that concludes a drive that she has been given through her sex designation. The more interesting question is whether or not this works because a male has been socialized to respond to ‘coyness’ or if he is biologically inclined to be interested in this behavior. The question might be both. If men respond to coyness because a woman has suggested a mystery to him, it might be that he is driven by this approach because biologically he is driven by the need to procreate through the farthest removed resources from his family. The scientific question becomes a difficult type of inquiry when sex and gender are separated. The construction of masculinity and femininity are a complexity of biological and social functions that work together towards creating what is male and what is female. The public discourse that has emerged from attempts to equalize the sexes has created confusion on how to discuss the ideas of feminine and masculine. Understanding that some aspects of being male or female are developed through different forms of influences is an important part of understanding gender. Creating a complete separation between sex and gender, however, does not create balanced approaches and suggests that there is a division between what it means to be born female from what it means to be socialized as female. Women give birth, and this biological fact is highly influential on how she is socialized to function in the world with this imperative a part of both her biology and her social function. In attempts to create equality through science, it might be easier to ignore biology and claim that it does not factor into the creation of gender. In creating different ways of speaking about gender and in determining that it is only a social creation, it might be easier to provide a framework to support equality. The problem is that the sex of men and women is very different. Therefore, the construction of gender around which life is constructed is very different. The confusion of the idea of gender power over society with the concept that to be equal the sexes must be the same has become the source of this confusing way of approaching sex and gender. As it is theorized that some are born into bodies that do not accommodate the drives that they have been born with, or that some are born with both sets of sexual organs, suggests that there is some room for error in the biological construction of male and female.. In this search for control over the idea of gender, the terms have become a confusing division that should be reassessed for research and discovery. Moreover, in trying to divide them in society, they have created prejudices, misunderstandings, and more confusion on a topic that is already complex and difficult to measure. Men and women are not the same, they are equal in importance in the human experience and as such, inquiry should reflect those differences as both essential and intrinsically linked through biological and sociological construction. References Bloodsworth-Lugo, Mary K. In-between Bodies: Sexual Difference, Race, and Sexuality. Albany, NY: State Univ. of New York Press, 2007. Print. Grauer, Anne L. and Patricia Stuart-Macadam. Sex and Gender in Paleopathological Perspective. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Print. Johnson, Allan G. The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy. Philadelphia: Temple University press, 2005. Print. Lorber, Judith. “Night to his Day”:The Social Construction of Gender”. Exerpts from Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press, 1994. Print. Meyerowitz, Joanne. How Sex Changed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press, 2004. Print. Risman, Barbara J. “Gender as a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism” Gender and Society. 18.4 (August 2004): 429-450. Read More