Gender Sections I Specifically Agreed

Gender

Sections I specifically agreed with include "Patriarchy" (Part II, Chapter 17, p. 166-169), and "Anti-Gay Stereotypes" (Part VII, Chapter 107, p. 522-523). The premise in "Patriarchy" is that ours is a male-dominated society, where males are seen as superior to females in roles of leadership and technical skill. Furthermore, when a male is less successful in roles preserved for females, such as caring or nurturing professions, this is seen as a sign of male superiority rather than inferiority. It appears then that the section is stating that this paradigm is mostly what happens in the world today. The temptation is to disagree, as there are many cases where women have begun making a considerable impact in society and in areas that are traditionally reserved for men. Nonetheless, when further information is given, it becomes clear that what the text is saying may indeed be true, and that not recognizing this, is a case of social denial.

One such instance is the premise of the power differences created between women and men. Men use their position in the roles traditionally reserved for them in order to ensure privileges that women are not entitled to. This is done in a very subtle manner, and is reinforced by the patriarchal paradigm promoting male superiority.

The subtlety of this is entailed in the fact that the superiority ascribed to males is not necessarily innately deserved by every member of the male gender. This superiority is indeed merely a perception rather than a fact, and this is the reason why many females have been unfairly oppressed in the world of business and politics.

A further point that the text makes is that there are women who have made a great success of their business and political careers. One such woman is Margaret Thatcher. The text however negates this with the fact that these powerful women are often surrounded by a multiplicity of equally powerful men. This once again reinforces the idea that, while women can occupy powerful positions, they need to be guided and advised by men in order to make a success of such careers. Furthermore the text emphasizes that not many powerful women can be tolerated within the patriarchal society. A limited number of them however serve to continue the illusion that the patriarchal paradigm is no longer a problem. This limited selection of women however are simply the exception that proves the rule: males are better at tasks and careers requiring logic, competence under pressure, forcefulness, decisiveness, and other skills usually ascribed to males. In contrast to these, the more nurturing, emotive qualities normally associated with women are see as weak. By ascribing these qualities and roles to men, according to the text, a symbolic world is created by means of language, in which men are in the foreground and women in the background of important activities.

Because the above-mentioned paradigms are so subtle in society, the tendency is to turn a blind eye to what is truly the case in the western world. It is easy to believe that we are enlightened and free-thinking, and that we give everybody the equal opportunities we are so proud of. The text however requires a closer examination of our society, and it is revealed that we fall far short of equality, even where such equality is deserved.

A therefore agree with this passage of the text, that equality, while it may be in the making, is still far in the future, especially where certain segments of society are concerned.

Another misunderstood and misrepresented segment of society is homosexual people. I agree with the premise of Part VII, Chapter 107 (p. 522-523). This passage of the text focuses on the way in which homosexuality has been misrepresented and consequently misunderstood by society. The discrepancy found in studies is remarkable: few people report having gay acquaintances, while studies show that gay people are virtually everywhere, and that more than half of the population has at least some of the time engaged in gay sexual activities. The reasons for this are similar to the reasons why society is still largely patriarchal: to be ashamed of one's own gay nature, or indeed to feel threatened by gay traits in others is part of the stereotypical paradigms created by a society that is ignorant about the gay lifestyle. Society therefore seeks to either ridicule or avoid the gay paradigm on the grounds that it is either very wrong or laughable.

Thus, rather than trying to fill the gap of ignorance with knowledge and research, it is the tendency in society to pretend knowledge in the form of stereotypes. Gay people are thus portrayed as ridiculous in terms of jokes leveled at them, or as a corruptive threat that can be seen as sinister or conspiratorial. Furthermore gay people are often seen as threatening in terms of perversion that may take the form of child molesting or maniacal sex activities.

The text goes on to state that false assumptions are based upon examinations of samples that do not represent the gay community as a whole. Indeed, the psychiatric profession saw the lifestyle as mental illness until as late as the 1970's. This paradigm was then presented to society, who readily accepted it rather than make their own investigations.

I agree with the above passage, in that it does seem that people tend to jump to conclusions regarding things and people they have little knowledge of. This is how stereotypes come into existence. It is easier to make derogatory assumptions than to investigate the unknown.

In the text, I disagreed with Part I, Chapter 8, "Masculinity as the Flight from the Feminine" (p. 86-87). I don't believe to be masculine is necessarily to flee from anything. This seems to be one of the prejudiced paradigms mentioned above. A misrepresentative sample of the male in society is assumed to represent the entire male paradigm. I must therefore disagree.

Specifically, I disagree with the three consequences of the assumed paradigm for a young boy. The first is that, because masculinity equals flight from the feminine, the young boy beings by pushing away the first female in his life, his mother. With her, the young male rejects the traits of nurturance, compassion, and tenderness she may have embodied and taught him. One simply needs to observe society and the way in which children are brought up to know that this is not true. Indeed, it rather seems that caring mothers provide the traits, of nurturance, compassion, tenderness and respect for others, whether the children be male or female. The passage appears to suggest that being male is a natural and helpless rejection of all things female. If this were the case, what male could ever love his wife, and how many mothers would have unloving sons? Obviously there is too much compassion in the world for this theory to hold true.

The second claim made by the passage is a continuation of the first. The young boy, having rejected his mother and all her traits, now seeks to destroy the traits in himself that he sees as feminine. These represent his incomplete separation from his mother. So his life becomes devoted to the task of proving that none of his mother's traits survive in him, and that he is thus truly masculine. The only basis for masculine affirmation is then in the denial of the feminine, which makes the masculine identity somewhat weak. I have to disagree with that statement, since it appears unnecessarily feministic and derisive towards the male gender. True, male domination has been part of many societies, but I doubt if the remedy for this is to move to the other extreme. Rather than try to belittle either gender, I think it makes more sense to cultivate mutual respect. Claiming that men find their only identity by an attempt at separation from their mothers does not cultivate respect for either gender.

The third assertion I disagree with is that, in distancing himself from his mother, the young boy is set on the road to devaluing all women in society, as these women embody all the traits in himself that he wishes to eradicate. Once again, this appears to be a huge generalization of the male paradigm. This is on the same level as saying that all gay people are sexual perverts, or that no woman can successfully hold a management position.

Many men value the contribution that women make to society and to the workplace. Although the patriarchal paradigm has found its way into a large part of our consciousness, I do think that those men attempting to consciously devalue women are few in number. I think it's mostly a case of being taught a certain way to think about women and their role in society, because of the patriarchal paradigm. But saying that men are consciously raised to devalue women is unfair and once again an overgeneralization.

What surprised me was the section entitled "Baby Boy Payoff" (Part III, Chapter 46, p. 271-272). This section claims that fathers tend to invest more in terms of time and money to their newborn baby boys than girls. When seen in the light of the patriarchal paradigm, I suppose it could be understood that more value is attached to baby boys than girls. Nonetheless, I find it surprising from my own point-of-view, since I would have thought that all children are equally important in their parents' eyes.

Another surprising thing is that women do not ascribe more importance to either baby boys or girls, but give either the same time and attention. Another surprising fact is however that an unmarried mother is more likely to marry the father of the unborn child when it is a boy. This could be connected to the fact that an older male figure in a child's life is seen as more important for boys than for girls. I suppose I can understand the way in which society has evolved to view gender in specific ways. I just find it tragic that people tend to hold on to outdated modes of belief without adjusting them to better suit the times and stage of evolution that we find ourselves in. Anyone can adjust their point-of-view for the better.