Sexuality and Gender

Sexuality and Gender

    Sex is first and foremost a biological condition; in rare cases individuals, however, are born with a resemblance to both sexes or none clearly developed sex, e.g. people born with intersex conditions. In these cases, sex becomes a choice that has to be made either by parents, medical personal, or the person concerned, depending on the situation.
This raises the question, if gender, the social role of masculinity and femininity, as a social contract is a choice or something that naturally occurs through the identification with one sex. It leads to theories questioning the fact that a female will always behave in a feminine role concept and a male always in a masculine one.  Research in this field has shown that socially everyone is expected to fit in the male versus female concept, and that the establishing of roles happens over stereotypes. These stereotypes are the extreme points of two opposing extremes the extreme masculine versus the extreme feminine. A masculine male for example might be defined by power, strength, logic, etc. the feminine through emotionalism, sensitivity, intuition, etc.; these values are determined by the cultural environment in which these definitions are produced, and are also impacted by the interpretation of negative and positive regarding the cultural perceptions. For example in Asia a opposing yin-yang principle is necessary to form an entity that cannot exist in its wholeness without both parts, in the African culture certain feminine properties are highly revered, and in the Middle East, there is little notion of superior versus inferior, because both roles are understood to be needed for a proper functioning of society, and evaluation of the person is granted according to their abilities to advance the family and society in the best possible way. In African and Middle Eastern culture with its history of female warriors and powerful female rulers, it is hard to generally portraying women as weak versus men as strong, when there are so many examples of female courage, as opposed to a famous Western product of the two opposites that is depicted in the masculine as logic versus the feminine as hysteric, going back to the father of Western psychology Dr. Sigmund Freud. The stereotypes, however, rarely reflect the reality and it can easily be determined that individuals most likely and realistically move along the axis that connects these two extremes, leading to a variety of divers personality types, where women can be logical and men can be sensitive, at least at times or when the situation requires it.
Modern Western feminism added yet another dimension to the debate of the perception of feminine and masculine roles. It included LGBT to the model in an attempt to cover the cases of individuals wanting to live as the opposite sex or choosing homosexuality over a heterosexual orientation. In a certain way this makes sense, as their decisions concern their perceived and chosen gender roles in societies, opens up a varieties of positioning for them between the different characteristics  on the axes between male-female and masculinity-femininity; Moreover, with a number of around 4% in average of LGBT of its total population, it became socially important for Western nations to address the status and stigma of LGBT populations in broader society. The stigmatization of these populations has brought new stereotypes to the model, which have to be questioned for their assumptions to be static. Just like in the traditional heterosexual male versus female model, the combinations of characteristics with tendencies to fit onto the LGBT populations are dynamic, leaving the individuals in all cases free to select and redefine over their lifetime their personal position between sex and gender role.
However, in the Western perception, this construct is based on power roles with heterosexual men holding the dominant position, while other groups, women and LGTB's have to keep demanding their rights as perceived and real minorities. The binary model has proven to be inefficient in its attempt to wipe out traditional understandings and give people flexibility in being the social actor they want to be.

    Throughout history feminist movements have tried to correct and reverse this situation. At first, demanding political equality through voting and representation, social equality followed in the 1960s and ever since has been fighting against patriarchic ideas in the workplace, family life and social life, trying change and abolish the norms and boundaries limiting women to be full participants in society. In newer times, their approach has changed from solely representing the white middle class woman to the attempts to represent also the interests of black women, lesbians and even women of other cultures and religions, noting that in their own culture religious women were largely excluded by the movement as their values seemed to oppose the movement's goals. It also let to an attitude realizing that a patriarchal image of society can be limiting for both, men and women. Feminism uses all three major methodologies in its analysis and studies: conflict theory, structural imperialism and symbolic interaction, exploring the field of men versus women, understanding the institutions that define and promote role behaviors and researching the symbols and rituals behind gender interaction and the definition of roles. With this in mind, feminism uses all three equally in its focus on and struggle for social, economical, political etc. justice for all groups alike.



    The article about changing dating habits in the US seems to indicate a shift of attitudes towards dating and the institution of marriage altogether. While marriage used to be a property relation, with a bond formed mainly in the interest of the groom's and bride's families motivated by economical or societal reasons, new dating and wedding habits point at a new perception of marriage, where the involvement of parents is only peripheral and the decision concerning the choice of a partner are made by the two people involved. However, until today the typical American wedding still involves symbolism that points towards the exchange of the bride as property from father to husband; these acts are symbolized through the father walking the bride down the aisle to hand her to her husband, the exchange of rings and the white dress as symbol of purity and therefore virginity of the bride. Fundamental changes in life-style lead to this different approach to courtship, relationships and marriage. While in the past, men needed women to cater to their needs while they were busy outside the home working, these tasks have nowadays shifted away from the female workforce towards new technologies and devices, like appliances, who perform these work intensive tasks with a decreased need of human workforce. Duties and responsibilities have shifted and changed and religious considerations, as well as family interests have become secondary. The invention of the automobile and the new concept of homes with private areas lead to an increased availability of private space that enabled couples to meet and spend time together away from the watchful eyes of relatives, when in the meantime commercials promoted a lifestyle of entertaining and sociability. Nowadays, the internet and social media, together with the increasing divorce and eventual re-marriage rates have changed profoundly changed the way people in the Western world think about dating. Sometimes, like in the case of the college students finding the right partner takes a backseat in the competition to instant sexual gratification. However, in this situation, gender equality does not exist, as women are shamed for this kind of behavior, while men tend to be lauded and respected for their apparent successes.


    The article about gender stratification relates to what we discussed about feminism earlier. The author questions if certain roles can be learned regardless of the sex of the individual through teaching or social conditioning. She concludes that role socialization is pulling people towards their gender roles according to their sex in order to facilitate their social life, as these roles are part of a system. She explore the possibilities in how far children can be educated to be gender neutral in their roles and expectations and reflects on the possibilities on influencing these gender perceptions altogether through the approach of 'doing gender', questioning the freedom of individuals to perform their chosen gender role versus a system that still controls and rewards what it considers gender appropriate behavior. As a conclusion, she leaves us wondering if gender might just exist to justify a social hierarchy and might be a made up construct just like race. While the logical path she employs to reach this conclusion is interesting and some of the parallels might pertain to both cases, I believe that the fact that gender has a clearly defined biological precondition (in most cases at least) cannot be neglected and that for the majority of individuals their sex is clearly a part of their personal identification by nature not by man-made standards, as the sex of a person has profound impact on the biological possibilities and needs of both sexes.


    "Drinking like a Guy" brings up the question of women choosing to re-enforce or challenging norms; in the case of the perception of the drinking culture and a male domain, women are trying to enter this domain and prove successful and equally capable in it. However, they miss out on the fact that this domain is owned and regulated by males and their ideas of full membership 'for men only' limit. Women are allowed to join under the rules of their male counterparts and only, because they are women and cannot be taken seriously in this discipline - their sex will always disqualify them from being an equal and achieving full membership, their sex being their glass ceiling. Ultimately, these girls are not challenging the male norms of the 'drinking guys', but eventually re-enforce them, as they are still being considered a female, not an equal drinking buddy.


    The case of "Mommy Tax" unveils the structural and social problems related to motherhood in the US. The author argues that mothers with an education lose about 1 million dollars when having a child in lost wages, delayed promotions etc. She is especially challenging the regulations of maternity leave in the American system. However countries like Scandinavia with better opportunities through maternity leave have also overall suffered from a low birth rate that needed to be addressed by their government through granting more benefits to mothers in general in order to motivate the population to considering mother hood more often. She argues that changing the interactions between economy and family will ultimately lead towards better parenting and therefore towards an improved society of tomorrow. It is also known that populations tend to go down in countries that do not offer mothers any benefits. It is noteworthy that rewarding device for the society should be rewarded by the latter as such, for the case of mothers as well as for the case of veterans. If the state does not uphold the principle that developing and improving it is a worthy goal and should be pursued by all individuals according to their abilities than over time this construct will become a foreign body, with which nobody in the society is able to identify any more. Humankind has been predefined through biological, mental and emotional factors to procrastinate and without this need and sacrifice the world population would shave vanished over time. Our retirement systems are nowadays established on the mechanism that the new generation's payments pay for the retirees. Society needs young people to care for the older member and other disadvantaged groups. Raising the next generation into a population that is caring and considerate towards its fellows required these principles laid down early in words and actions. If a single mom has to tell her son that he will not be anybody because society does not care enough about him, he will never think of paying back anything he earns or receives in its life time. Why would he, as he learned early on that it is each one for himself.