Sex vs. Gender as discussed on Facebook

Recently, something very interesting happened among the comments on the Facebook status of one of my friends (I know it's shocking but true). A friend of mine posted a link to an article all about gender. To me, a well-versed sociology student (hee hee), this article was nothing new: Sex and gender are two different things, sex being biological and gender being socially constructed and learned. Among the comments on this friend's link, one girl wrote

     I think the mistake of gender socialization is to teach gender ideals based on anatomy rather than discerning the balance of masculinity and femininity within the individual. Gender differences are REAL and INNATE. They just aren't always as clear cut as penises and vaginas.

My initial reaction was to angrily respond to her "real and innate" comment. But then I read the whole thing again. She's not saying anything about women biologically being feminine or men masculine; she's saying that the personality traits which we've designated as feminine and masculine exist, and are different, but just don't exist in humans based on genitals, or primary sex characteristics. Very interesting thought.

What do you think?

I'm undecided as of now. I think it's a very interesting point, but my problem with it is the perpetuation of binaries. I think it's a bit simplified. She's trying to point out that people are widely varied and that variation doesn't have to do with biology, but she can't get past the idea of two categories. Most people that I know would not easily (would barely, in fact) fit into a category of either feminine or masculine, regardless of their biological sex. My boyfriend has several masculine traits as well as several feminine ones, but if I were to categorize him I wouldn't put him in either place. I think if we really want to move past the stereotypes associated with men, women, masculinity and femininity, we need to move past all these binaries and look at people as human beings with a range of emotions and traits. 

Our society is so worried about names. I fall victim to it too. Even now, I almost wrote something about getting rid of categories all together, and my first thought was "But what would people be then?" How could we easily describe someone if we didn't have simple categories like "man" or "woman" to fall back on? I don't know. I also think it's unrealistic to imagine our society making a change like that; language would be difficult to completely re-do. But I think it's an interesting idea to think about ways in which we could change the ways we think of men and women so that we don't have one group against the other, or one group as the opposite of the other, and so that we could allow for the millions of tiny traits, behaviors and quirks that make one human different from all others.




**For extra reading, this article discusses how we socialize children (specifically female children) to fit into their gender roles, even when we don't realize we are doing it, and don't mean to do it.

Dolls and McDonald's

I witnessed a sad moment today, sad and far too common. I was (and still am) baby-sitting my half-brother. He's four and a half. I took him to McDonald's for dinner so he could play in the playhouse. He kept running back to the table and then into the playhouse again. One time, he ran out to point out a little boy.
"There's a little boy playing with a doll!" he said.
"I see," I said, wondering where this was going.
"He's not supposed to play with dolls!" he cried.
Shit. I thought. I stopped him and told him that little kids could play with whichever toys they wanted to play with, it didn't matter if they were boys or girls. I don't know if he really heard me, but he at least didn't say anything to the other boy's face.

It can be so discouraging to see how quickly gender socialization becomes ingrained into children. My brother is only four, and, considering that his parents are about 45 and 58, hasn't been around a whole lot of other children. I like to think that my dad and my stepmom would never say to him "little boys can't play with dolls" (after all, I don't think he has a doll but he does have a vacuum cleaner, which could definitely be considered a "girl toy"), but I don't know for sure. I'm sure he's heard those kinds of rules enforced among other children, and possibly other parents. It just broke my heart to see my brother accusing a boy of doing something wrong, when he was clearly having so much fun with his doll.

And I think that's exactly what gender rules do: they label behaviors as wrong, and limit the ways in which people can express and enjoy themselves.

Ogres or Fashionistas: The Modern Female Tennis Player?

I found an article online today about Serena Williams and her current tennis status. The article itself is about women's tennis and whether or not there are any "Williamses of tomorrow" among younger players, because the Williams sisters are still at the top; however, within this article, there are some very sexist comments. The main paragraph that bothered me was this one:

     Serena hasn't been an easy champion to warm to over the years, with forehands and backhands wielded like a woodman's ax, her ogre-like hunger for victory, her steamrollering of opponents, and her profanity-laced bullying of a U.S. Open lineswoman in 2009. She has been physically and mentally awesome, she commands respect, is sometimes provocative, charming and cheeky, but appeared too dominant to be deep-down lovable. 


Why do we have a standard in our culture that all women, regardless of their occupation or even personality, should ultimately be lovable? Just as all men don't fit into the hypermasculine mold of all rationality and no emotion, not all women fit into the emotional and nurturing mold of femininity. The writer, John Leicester, gives her credit for being "physically and mentally awesome," as well as someone worthy of respect, yet that is apparently not enough; she must be lovable, and to be lovable, she must stop being dominant (subtext: because that's not ladylike). Men are never criticized for being too dominant, especially in a field like athletics where a tough attitude is required. 


Also, the description of her tennis techniques and player characteristics all have a negative tone to them, precisely because they are all associated with masculine qualities (ogre-like, steamrollering, woodman's ax). When you work around the negative tone, these descriptors basically say that Serena is tough and aggressive, often beats her opponents by a landslide, and wields a strong arm behind her tennis racket. Aren't these all qualities that one hopes for, in fact, requires, in a star athlete? Why, then, are they seen as negative because the player is female? Rafael Nadal, considered one of the more aggressive male players at Wimbledon right now, is described as "audacious" and his game as "skillfully executed." "His serve fizzed and crackled," wrote Jim White. Instead of having "ogre-like hunger for victory," Nadal simply "knows how to win." The descriptions are clearly filled with assumptions about how men and women are (or should be) different, even within the same sport. The qualities that are revered in a man are looked down upon in a woman.


In related sexism against the Williams sisters, Venus has caught a lot of criticism for the fancy white tennis outfit she sported recently. This article that I read calls the outfit a "fashion disaster" and discusses how unflattering her outfit was, pointing out that the top "made her chest look saggy as she ran around the court." Are we really that concerned about whether a tennis player's chest looks saggy or not while she's running around and playing a professional sport? Apparently, we are. The Internet is full of articles and blog posts criticizing the on-court fashion sense of the Williams sisters. Women in sports just can't catch a break. They not only have to be 'hot' and look 'glamorous' at after hours events, they also have to look good during games, when their focus is on the game (their profession!). I was really disappointed this morning when doing a search (for work) on the top athletes of today, all I could find were sexist articles and posts about these incredible female athletes.

Y'all Come Back Now!! (ugh)

Warning: I'm going to stray from feminism a little bit.

As previously stated, I've been re-reading The Devil Wears Prada for some light, easy summer reading; however, it's not as easy as I'd hoped. Lauren Weisberger, the author, and/or Andi Sachs, the main character, are total haters of the South! The main character is literally disgusted by the fact that her sister married a Texan, and even more disgusted by the fact that her sister has picked up a bit of a Southern accent after living in Texas, with a Southern man, for several years. The character talks about actually cringing every time her brother-in-law speaks. Seriously? I know that I've grown up around Southern accents, but I can't imagine why it's any more cringe-worthy than any other accent (or why any accent is cringe-worthy, for that matter).

Later in the book, Andi has to work at a party full of Southern guests. Very wealthy guests. She describes the rich guests as women with big-hair and tackily, over-applied make-up. Again: seriously? Is this the only image of Southerners (or rich Southerners) out there? And she doesn't even choose one character to note that not all Southerners fit any stereotypes (she reluctantly admits that her brother-in-law is nice, but this is followed by the cringing remark, so it doesn't count in my book). I hate to think that this is how people unfamiliar with the South still think of us but I think it really might be.

Women are trying to move past stereotypes of virgin/whore, passive, emotional, etc. Racial and ethnic minorities continue to fight against hundreds of offensive stereotypes. GLBT groups and people are fighting against narrow-minded, 2-dimensional representations of themselves in the media. Why aren't we Southerners fighting against the images of us as stupid, red-neck, hick, tacky and unsophisticated people? Just like any other stereotypes, these images have actual effects on our day-to-day lives (like when my mother gave a formal, professional presentation for work, and a man on the panel could only tell her how impressed he was that she, a Southern woman, was able to speak quickly and articulate!).

I know this has nothing to do with feminism, but what can I say? Today I'm not angry as a feminist.
I'm angry as a Southerner.

Work Dress

Today, I tried to wear actual business attire to work today, at least, casual, 90-degree Mississippi heat business attire. I wore slacks, a V-neck shirt with a camisole underneath and ..... heels! 2 and a half inch heels. I guess in the grand scheme of things, 2 and a half inches aren't a huge deal (I'm reading my guilty pleasure summer book, The Devil Wears Prada, and there's constant mention of four inch Stilettos) but for a girl who wears flip-flops and sandals, and tennis shoes if absolutely necessary, these heels were a big deal. And they were even pretty comfortable. I don't stand up all day so I was never in pain or anything. But still, it makes me wonder, why do women have to dress this way? Even working in a casual, small office (there are three of us, and this week it's only two), I still felt compelled to try to amp up my business clothing. And the other woman who works there was wearing heels today, and I think does on many days. We have to walk up 26 steps to get to work, after crossing a very uneven gravel parking lot. We have to walk back and forth, to and from each other's offices as well as to and from the bathroom and the copier. Shoes that are difficult to walk in or uncomfortable in anyway are simply impractical.

So what's the point? Heels are supposed to make your legs and your ass look better right? So, based on that logic, shouldn't they be worn on nights out and special occasions? Is the office really the place to try out your sexiest looks? OR, more interestingly, are the current, unspoken rules of what constitutes female work attire descendants of male ideas about how women should look attractive, appealing and available to them at all times? After all, think of all the stereotypes about secretaries; or not even the stereotypes, even just the ways men joke about secretaries, with all the sexual innuendo, etc.

There is, as always, a double standard. Women are supposed to dress professionally to be taken seriously in the work world, yet the standards for dressing professionally are intended to make them look sexy and appealing (which is not the best way to be taken seriously). I mentioned in an old blog post the court case Ann Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse, a case in which the woman was denied a promotion because she didn't dress enough "like a woman." So even though she was clearly dressing in a way that made her feel comfortable and professional, the men in charge of promoting her felt that her lack of make-up and feminine touches meant she wasn't serious about getting ahead in her career (the implication being that the make-up and feminine touches are required to impress the men who are in charge).

And yet, even after considering all this, I don't necessarily want to give up the heels (though I also don't want to wear them tomorrow). I felt more professional-looking at work today. Maybe it's because I've been socialized to see that kind of outfit as professional women's wear, but even though I was in some ways less comfortable, I was pleased with my appearance. And looking back on it, it makes me really sad, and kind of shocks me, how easily I slipped into an attitude of "no pain, no gain" when it comes to my fashion.

Even feminists don't have it all figured out all the time.

Summer Reading

So, it's been far too long since I've written a new post. However, I also haven't found the time to work on anything. So for the time being, I'm going to recommend some summer reading:

Mississippi Sissy by Kevin Sessums (yes, I wrote about it in the last post, but it's worth it!)
An Invisible Sign of My Own by Aimee Bender
The Particular Sadness of Lemon Cake by Aimee Bender (she's quickly becoming my new favorite author!)
The Queen's Fool by Philippa Gregory (a guilty pleasure, but a pretty fun read)
Queenpin by Megan Abbott
Bury Me Deep by Megan Abbott
The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood
The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood (really, anything by Atwood is great, but these are my favorites!)
Daisy Fay and the Miracle Man by Fannie Flagg
Prep by Curtis Sittenfeld
A Single Man by Christopher Isherwood
Woman Warrior by Maxine Hong Kingston

I promise to be back soon with something new and interesting to write about!