Inequality in Gendering the Body Transform - Research Paper Example

‘Processes of gendering the body transform female and male physiology into a condition of inequality.’ The term gender is defined as ‘the state of being male or female’ [Oxf151]. This description is in relation to the differing behaviours and social and cultural norms attributed to each sex, as opposed to biological differences (ibid). The definition itself highlights a debate as to whether the concept of gender, and the way it effects the body is socially constructed, or an inevitable by-product of inherent differences. Biological determinism and radical feminism take opposing views on this debate. Biological determinism maintains that each sex has inherent features which instigate deterministic behaviours, and it is this which creates a separation of genders and differences in the use of the male and female body [Shi06]. Throughout history this notion has been supported by science [Moi92], and played out in cultural practices [Nad95]. This arguably resulted in the objectification of the female body and created a segregation of women from the public sphere (ibid). In modern times, the growth of institutions such as the sex industry and its influence upon western culture, means many women now state they feel liberated and free to use their bodies in the way that they wish [Nad95]. However, radical feminists insist that female bodies, continues to be used to oppress and objectify women [Den01], that a patriarchal society has coerced females into using their bodies in an oppressive manner [Cat89], and that this is upheld via cultural and social norms [Kle97] which are instilled from birth [PhD97]. This essay will concentrate on the gendering of the female form, to argue that processes of gendering the body transform female physiology into a condition of inequality. Biological determinism would arguably question if the word ‘processes’ is correct in relation to gendering of the body. It is claimed that rather than the result of cultural and social processes, biological variances are the cause of differences in the way males and females use their bodies [Shi06]. Theorists state that inherent differences between the sexes cause contrasting behaviours and deterministic inequalities (ibid). Historically, factors such as brain size and intelligence [Ann08], functions of the brain and hormonal differences [Pro10] have all been cited as reasons behind the differences in the way males and females present themselves. It could be inferred that these differences, for example the suggestion that males use the left side of their brain, making them better suited to reasoning and intellectual thought (ibid), have led to unavoidable differences. Historically arguments have been made, such as that of the inherent capability of males to use their bodies in a more masculine and assertive way, and that this allows them to be more economically and socially successful [Sta11]. However, radical feminists strongly oppose the idea of biological determinism, arguing that the different ways in which the sexes use their physique is the result of socially constructed gendering of the body; that this gendering acts to promote inequalities and works for the benefit of a patriarchal society [Den01]. From this perspective, in order to maintain male dominance, patriarchy instigates the development of two distinct sex classes [Den01]. Through processes such as sexuality, men control women’s bodies which creates inequalities within society [Jan99]. It is argued that these inequalities are changeable and therefore society must be stripped down and reorganised, devoid of male dominance and a sex-class system, thus removing gender disparities [Den01]. When analysing biological determinism further, scientific facts becomes difficult to dispel. As late as 1992 attempts have been made to argue the case that differences are innate, and therefore unchangeable [Moi92]; if this is the case then it could be strongly maintained that inequalities, such as the differences in the way in which society treats the body of male and female children, are warranted. For example, boys are seen as more masculine and strong therefore it is common for parents to engage in activities with them such as play fighting, and present them with toys such as guns which actively seeks to encourage them to use their bodies in a more masculine and aggressive manner [Gol94]. Girls however are treated as more delicate, they are cuddled more and nurturing toys such as dolls and items such as princess dresses are presented to them which encourage them to use their bodies in a more delicate way (ibid). In their book ‘Brain sex’ Anne Moir & David Jessel (1992) argue that “The way men and women behave, is not simply a matter of brain differences; it is a function of the interplay between the hormones and the brain, just as the intercession of the hormone first ‘sexes’ or ‘wires’ the brain...” (Moir Ph. D. & Jessel, 1992, p.197). It could be inferred that the differences in children’s behaviour, and the way in which they use their bodies to engage in play is inherent. Children may be naturally attracted to contrasting types of toys, which encourages the use of the male and female form in different ways. One case study which appears to support this theory, is that of David Reimer [Joh01]. In 1967, after a medical procedure failed, Reimer was left with irreparable damage to his penis (ibid). After a consultation between the parents and psychologist John Money, the decision was taken to remove the penis, construct female genitalia and raise John as a girl (ibid). Reimer was to remain ignorant to this fact, being raised as if he had born female (ibid). At the age of 22 months the procedure was carried out, and Reimer returned home with his parents. With the help of hormones he was to live out his life as a female (ibid). During a follow up examinations of both the child and his twin brother, in which the two children were watched interacting with each other, Money reported the gender reassignment surgery as a success, stating “The child's behavior is so clearly that of an active little girl and so different from the boyish ways of her twin brother” (Halpern, 2012, p.163). This initially suggests that that the way in which young males and females use their body, isn’t in fact inherent, but socially constructed. However, when Reiner reached adulthood he suffered with severe psychological issues, persistently insisting that he never identified himself as female and he was stopped by his parents by using his body in a masculine way, being told “oh no, you are a girl” (Rudacille, 2005, p.135). This case arguably highlights that differences in the presentation of males and females are inherent, and so inequalities in the treatment of infants of different sex are inevitable by-product of this factor. However, whilst the evidence put forward by this case appears at first to be compelling, from a radical feminist perspective this case does not prove that the use of the body in a masculine or feminine way, is inherent. This theory can be used to show how social processes cause children to absorb a male centred ideology, which is successful in making women use their bodies in a manner which promotes gender inequalities. Radical Feminists suggest that the family is a principal institution of patriarchy [Kle97]. Andrea Dworkin puts forward the suggestion that “The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society. One learns what one must know” (Klein & Bell, 1997, p.31). This suggests that early socialization is important in terms of how a child learns to present themselves as male or female. In the case of Reiner, the gender reassignment did not take place until 22 months [Joh01]. This gave the child almost two years in which to internalize a male dominated ideology, through male eyes. Reiner, who resided within a nuclear family, including a twin brother, arguably learnt how to use his body in a masculine way, for the first 22 months of his life (ibid). Many studies which assess the impact of socialization on young children, support the fact that it can have a strong influence on the determination of gendered behaviour [PhD97]. One such paper details many studies, one of which suggests that “Parents have differential expectations of sons and daughters as early as 24 hours after birth” (ibid, p.1) and that “As children develop, these gender stereotypes become firmly entrenched beliefs and thus, are part of a child’s self-concept” (ibid). It is also noted within the paper that parents encourage “daughters to participate in sex-typed activities, including doll playing and engaging in housekeeping activities for girls” (ibid). This shows how the notion of females using their bodies in more nurturing manner is internalised at a young age. With this evidence in mind, it is reasonable to propose that in the case of Reiner, his gendered treatment had been absorbed for the period of 22 months prior to his reassignment. The way in which he would present himself in later life had already become instilled within in his concept of self, stimulating the use of his body is a male way. As the child grew and disassociated with his female form, although it appeared he was showing inherent behaviours consistent with those suggested by biological determinism [Shi06], he actually was using his body in a way which had been instilled from birth until 22 months. In terms of how inequality promoted in childhood, which encourages differing uses for the body, it is argued that “adults communicate normative sex roles by the selection of toys for boys and girls” (Weiss, 1978, p.116). It could be reasoned that this process of socialization instils stereotypical behaviours. These behaviours, such as a using the female form in a more sedate manner, and directing them to activities which promotes feminine play, leads to the notion that their bodies are suited for activities which are associated with females, such as child-rearing. This will contribute in removing them from the public sphere and leaving them in a position of financial dependence upon a male. The oppressive nature of gendering the female form, debatably continues to impact women as they reach adulthood. Historically, biological determinism has had a substantial impact on the presentation of the adult female body. This discourse was used in order to present women as ‘the weaker sex’ [Kap95]. A separation of body and mind during the early 19th Century, saw associations made between intelligence and males, and females and the body (ibid). This ‘scientific fact’ was supported by medical evidence from academics such as Geddes and Thompson, who advocated men as capable of expanding their surplus energy, making them eager, energetic and variable, whilst women conserve energy making them sluggish, passive and stable [Sta11]. This ‘science’ contributed to restricting female suffrage (Ibid). During this time the female body was seen as the legal property of a men and was useful for reproductive purposes [Kap95]. As a result females occupied a separate, private sphere (ibid). This period was an era where the female body was thought to be of use to society but mind was not [Rot141]. Such a discourse of inequality influenced the objectification of the female body within many forms of culture during this period, presenting them as a sexual commodity (Ibid); fashion, for example corsets, restricted freedom and were designed to emphasise the female anatomy, and western art consistently dehumanized and objectified women by presenting them as naked (ibid). Thankfully, in the decades since Geddes and Thompson’s argument was first put forward, it has been branded as “naïve” and has been academically disregarded (Fausto-Sterling, 2008, p.184). It could be debated that advancements in women’s equality has been successful in rejecting thoughts that the female form can be used in a negative way, by portraying them as a sexual commodity. Women are now argued to use the sexualisation of their body to make positive expressions of self [Roo14], with this argument debatably encompassed in the world of pornography. In her book ‘Defending Pornography’, Nadine Strossen (1995) discusses many opinions of women working in the sex industry. One such women, a law student, states [that] “Many intelligent, self-confident women...have chosen to work in this industry” [Nad95]. Strossen, vehemently defends a women’s choice to work within pornography, arguing that it is a women’s right to make the decision to use their body in this way. She argues that taking away a women’s control over their body and restricting them from such activities, is akin to the restrictions that women have experienced in the past (ibid). It is argued that within this industry, many women claim to feel unrestricted by male centred ideology and the objectification of the past [Nad95]. They feel liberated and free to use their bodies to pursue their desires (ibid). However, although there is an appearance that within the sex industry the use of the female body can be used as a form of empowerment, it is strongly protested that social processes of gendering the body, particularly within the sex industry, promote inequality for women. Catherine MacKinnon (1989) talks extensively on this subject and how “in the feminist view pornography is a form of forced sex, a practice of sexual politics, and institution of gender inequality." (MacKinnon, 1989, p.197). McKinnon infers that pornography isn’t about female empowerment at all, but about sex, and “when uncovering gender in this way” (MacKinnon, 1989, p.196), women’s bodies are found to be invisible, when the common perception is that they are at their most exposed (ibid). The theorist infers that pornography severely contributes to widening attitudes regarding women and their bodies, encourages physical and mental violence against them and promotes discrimination (ibid). With MacKinnon’s thoughts in mind, pornography can be argued to have affected other areas of society, outside just that of the sex-industry. Its existence has debatably influenced many aspects of western culture, such as fashion, magazines, advertising, films and television. These institutions all regularly encourage women to use their bodies in a sexually provocative manner, and continue to normalize the objectification of the female body [Bar14]. It has been argued that “Although the sexual objectification of women in the media has been regarded as encouraging men to women as sex objects, evidence has also emerges that women perceive their own gender in a similar way” (Gunter, 2014, p.17) . Mackinnon suggests that the obscenity laws which seek to protect society from these graphic images, are devised under male dominance. They are male centered and protect male interests, therefore they do little to help (ibid). MacKinnon (1989) further discusses that women do not choose to use their bodies in the provocative manner, of which they are consistently visually bombarded; this choice is an unconscious action brought on by ‘coercion’ (ibid). Although women have the perception that they are freethinking; using their body to pursue a form sexual liberation through choice, they are in fact continuing to be shackled by a male centered ideology which objectifies the female form in order to uphold an inequality between the sexes (ibid). In conclusion, the evidence arguably suggests that processes of gendering the body transforms the male and female physiology into a condition of inequality. Biological determinism has presented evidence that would suggest that males and females are deterministic in their behaviours and that this is the reason that a separation of the male and female physiology has occurred [Shi06]. Any use of the female body that arises from these differences are inherent and unchangeable (ibid). However, although some inequalities in the presentation of females have occurred, females are able to use their body as a form of empowerment [Nad95]. However from a radical feminist perspective it has been shown that the historical construction of gendering the body is continuing to play out in contemporary society. Male dominated ideology has filtered through into present values and cultures [Cat89]. Children continue to be socialized in a way which persistently instils inequality by encouraging differing uses of the body [Tra78], which helps to maintain patriarchal supremacy. Women have been shown to be unaware of the fact that their bodies are persistently objectified, which leads to the repression of women via male centred cultural values and norms [Cat89]. Since the arguments of Geddes and Thompson have been dismissed [Ann08], it could be argued that patriarchy is evolving to find new ways to objectify and dehumanise the female body, in an age when equality is of such importance. Bibliography Ciambriello, R., 2014. ADWEEK. [Online] Available at: http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/how-ads-empower-women-are-boosting-sales-and-bettering-industry-160539 [Accessed 7th November 2015]. Colapinto, J., 2001. As Nature Made Him: The Boy who was Raised as a Girl. New York: HaperCollins Publishers. Fausto-Sterling, A., 2008. Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men. New York: Basic Books. Golombok, . S. & Fivush, R., 1994. Gender Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gunter, B., 2014. Media and the Sexualization of Childhood. Oxon: Routledge. Halpern, D. F., 2012. Sex Differences in Cognitive Abilities. 4th ed. New York: Taylor and Francis Group. Kappeler, S., 1994/95. [Online] Available at: http://www.troubleandstrife.org/articles/issue-2930/ [Accessed 7th November 2015]. Klein, R. & Bell, D., 1997. Radically Speaking: Feminism Reclaimed (EDITIED). Melbourne: Spinifex Press. MacKinnon, C. A., 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. London: Harvard University Press. Moir Ph. D., A. & Jessel, D., 1992. Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women. New York: Dell Publishing. Oxford Dictionary, 2015. Oxford Dictionary. [Online] Available at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gender [Accessed 8th November 2015]. Pilcher, J., 1999. Women in Contemporary Britain: An Introduction. London: Routledge. Rothenberg, J., 2014. Sociology Looks at the Arts. Oxon: Routledge. Rudacille, D., 2005. The Riddle of Gender. New York: Random House Inc.. Stanford University, 2011. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/ [Accessed 7th November 2015]. Strossen, N., 1995. Defending Pornography: Free Speech, Sex, and the Fight for Women's Rights. London: New York University Press. Tarrant, S., 2006. When Sex Became Gender. OXON: Routledge. Thompson, D., 2001. Radical Feminism Today. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. . Wang, P. G.-z., 2010. Reproductive Health and Gender Equality: Method, Measurement, and Implications. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Weiss, T. B., 1978. The Rhetoric of Radical Feminism: A Pentadic Analysis of the Inception of a Rhetorical Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University. Witt, S. D., 1997. Parental Influence on Children's Socialization to Gender Roles. [Online] Available at: http://gozips.uakron.edu/~susan8/PARINF.HTM [Accessed 7th November 2015]. Read More