Feminist theories on gender inequality.

Feminists on gender inequality.

[anons.] (2011) Betty White qoute. [online image] available from: http://www.bigfishink.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/cartoon-Betty-White-on-Balls-jpg.jpg [accessed 18th january 2015].

To delve into the depths of feminists theories on gender inequality firstly we must clear up what a feminist is (and it’s not one of those man-hating feminazis that we so often seem to hear about). A feminist is someone who believes that within today’s society women are oppressed through social stratification and strives to achieve equality within our culture. To gain a further understanding of feminist theory this article will compare three explanations of gender inequality – biology, language and socialisation.

Shulamith Firestone refers to women as being less privileged due to biology. Men and women are biologically different, an undeniable fact, which firestone explains results in a division through a sexual class system. Women’s reproductive organs give them an instant disadvantage, having to bear the responsibility of menstruation and childbirth. These burdens result in over dependency on males during pregnancy and the nurturing of the child, which Firestone believes “produce[s] unequal power relationships” (2000). This explanation holds value  as men do not have the same physical responsibility to reproduce that women endure but if this the true explanation for gender inequality then the first stage of overcoming it would to gain equality in terms of biology, which in today’s society seems impossible. Firestones theory is also not applicable to all societies and cultures, where men hold primary responsibility for child care and nurture.

Due to having a male dominated society our social construction is a vital part of controlling females and encouraging males to prevail. Through primary socialisation females and males are moulded into their gender roles, taught how to behave act and feel (Fulcher and Scott, 2001). Through my own experience these are further encouraged through secondary socialisation where schools teach children what their aims should be in life after education. Media is also a major influence within secondary socialisation. From a young age you are exposed to media every day. Whether it be television, music or magazines. Girl’s magazines focus on hair, make up and sex; whilst boy’s magazine focus on cars, science and the rough and tumble. You cannot deny that this media exposure creates an underprivileged realm for women when they are taught from so young that they must judge themselves through their image and the type of male they can acquire. Women are taught that their main attributes to offer the world is their reproductive organs, nurturing skills and the ability to please a man. Men are taught that women are beneath them, as they have always had an advantage. Although they may deny the knowledge of this our selfish human nature will typically not challenge something helping us to achieve. This theory can hold validity to most females within the culture of the 21^st century in the UK. To be able to gain inequality, our whole society and culture must be stripped down and recreated which seems a very unlikely occurrence right now (maybe in the future?).

Language is supposedly the intellect that divides humans from other mammals – but does it also divide males and females? Karen Atkinson (1993) explains that sexism is predominantly visible within today’s language, whether it be verbal or written. The language that we so unobservable use was created by men and is dominated by men. Terms such as ‘Mankind’ are used frequently to refer to all gender of human but unexplainably uses the word ‘man’. Women are being oppressed through this ‘manmade’ language that our patriarchal society has empowered men with. With such contrasting labelling such as ‘stud-slag’ and such vulgar and offensive terms used to describe the vagina, it is undeniably sexist.

Overall each theory does hold some validity and explanation for gender inequality, although the only obvious way to achieve true equality will either be through years (or maybe centuries) of change or a revolution.

 

References

Haralambos, M., Holborn, M. and Heald, R. (2000) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. Hammersmith: HarperCollins Publishers Limited. P 139-140.

Atkinson, K. (1993). Language and Gender. In: Jackson, S. Womens Studies: A reader. Hemel Hampstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. p403-407.

Fulcher, J. and Scott, J.(2001) Sociology. New York:Oxford University Press Incorporated. Pg 154-155

Nature v Nurture

The Development of Gender: Nature Vs Nurture

Gender is a label defined by masculine and feminine attributes identified through different social and cultural characteristics (Browne, K. 2006). The development of gender is something that is widely discussed and debated. The main two arguments involve the sociobiological theory: that gender can be explained in biological terms; and the social constructionist theory - that gender has been learnt from society (Giddens 1993). This essay will discuss these two theories, there strengths, limitations and evaluate them in their approach to the development of gender.

Haralambos and Holborn (2000) explain that E.O. Wilson based the development of socio-biology around the theory of evolution by Charles Darwin, furthermore it was applied to gender by David Barash (1979). The sociobiological theory believes that all behaviour of humans and animals can be explained through three biological means: Endocrinology (study of hormones), genetics and evolution. “Socio-biology refers to the application of biological principles in explaining the social activities of all social animals including human beings” (Giddens, A. 1993. Pg 35). Biology has proven that there are different levels of hormones produced in the body dependent upon sex, and there is a direct link between behaviour and hormones. This has been further shown in Baren-Cohen’s experiments, where results have shown that levels of testosterone during pregnancy can cause different behaviours in males and females by the age of one (Marsh, I. et al pg 220). Further, this experiment has been backed up by Udry (1995) in his studies on hormones. It has also been documented before but ethological studies on primates. Most of these biological studies and experiments do have scientific evidence, however they are mainly performed on animals (Udry, R.J. 1995), meaning they lack validity as they cannot always be applied to human gendered behaviours. Although there may be experiments on humans giving evidence to support the biological theory it is not always applicable in every society and culture. The sociobiologist theory also limits the variation within their evidence as other social and cultural factors are not taken into account, for example, in tribes where women are more dominant, males have the responsibility of rearing children (Haralambos & Holborn 2000). By underestimating the effect that socialisation may have on gender, studies can be hindered with the belief that their theories are always correct.  

The social constructionist theory follows the belief that all social behaviour can be explained through social construction. The constructionist’s believe that gender is a social construct and has been developed through socialisation (Giddens, A. 1993). A major influence to this is gender roles. Gender roles are the expectations set by society that determine the way we act, feel, think and behave. Within each culture these roles are varied due to the differences in ideologies. From the moment of birth (or even before with the technology of today) gender roles are set into place. Within most western societies gender differences are poignantly visible through observable behaviours and social identities. Primary socialisation is the first stage of this ‘gender teaching’, starting early on within the family. When children are born, families, consciously or unconsciously, influence their child’s gender through gender specific names, toys, clothes and behaviours (Marsh, I et al 2009). This theory has been backed up by studies on the treatment of gender specific babies. A child was dressed in pink and given a female name which led to the adults describing the child as having feminine traits and encouraged to play with ‘female toys’. When the same baby was dressed in blue and given a male name it was described as having masculine traits and was encouraged to play with ‘male toys’ (Giddens, A. 1993). This experiment shows that gender is enforced through socialisation early on in life. Haralambos and Holborn (2000) explain that the family is not the only the part of gender learning, secondary socialisation occurs within education and other agencies. With same sex schools, and gender aimed classes, an individual’s identity in extremely influenced to make them fit in to their society. Whilst in this stage of secondary socialisation peer groups are also a major influence. Through all parts of social life gender has been taught to the individual, e.g. family education health religion. Anybody who does not follow these gender ‘norms’ that are set by the society in which they exist have been as far as labelled as ‘abnormal’ by psychologists. With it even resulting in people being medicated and receiving therapy to ‘fit in’ and meet these norms. To reiterate a weakness of the socio-biologist theory, social constructionists also hinder their studies and experiments by only looking for supporting evidence rather than anything that may be contradicting to their belief. This theory also does not take into account the social and cultural differences, where some cultures may not have so many gender traditions (Haralambos & Holborn. 2000).

These two theories may seem very contrasting but there are small similarities between each. With socio-biologists explaining gender through nature and socio-constructionists through nurture, there is no evidence given that gender may be a choice, it is either forced upon us or written within our human DNA, everything is predetermined. Along with these similarities there are also differences: Sociobiological may seem to be a more scientific approach but as the evidence provided cannot be applied to every human being, the social constructionist theories may hold a stronger argument. To contradict this, something intangible is not something that is so easily backed up by scientists, who tend to disregard social science, with the belief that science is physical.

The contribution of nature nurture evidence provided by these theories is hard to deny. However it is difficult to apply either one of these theories globally due to the lack of external validity within their experiments. The socio-biologists may be able to provide evidence to their theory, but it is difficult to ignore the fact that socialisation unquestionably encourages and manifests gender and its roles within society.

Word count: 990

 

References

 

Anderson, M.L. and Witham, D.H. (2010) Thinking About Women: Sociological Perspectives on Sex and Gender. 9th edition. Boston: Pearson Education. Browne, K. (2006) Introducing Sociology for AS Level 2nd ed., United Kingdom: Polity Press. Fulcher, J. and Scott, J. (2011) Sociology 4th ed., United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Pg154-155 Giddens, A. (1993) Sociology, United Kingdom: Cambridge : Polity Press. Haralambos, M. and Holborn, M. (2000) Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. London : Collins. Illich, I. (1983) Gender, United Kingdom: London ; New York : Marion Boyars. Marsh, I., Keating, M. and Punch, S. (2009) Sociology: Making Sense of Society 4th edition. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited. Taylor, P. Richardson, J. Yeo, A. Marsh, I. Troke, K. Pilkington, A. (1995) Sociology in focus. Ormskirk: Causeway Press Limited. Pg 125. Turner, B., Abercrombie, N. and Hill, S. (2006) The Penguin dictionary of sociology 5th edition. United Kingdom: Penguin Group.

Udry, J.R. (1995) Social Forces: Socilogy and Biology: What Biology Do Sociologists Need to Know? North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press. 73 (4): pp 1267-1278.