Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Todd on June 6, 2010 at 12:25pm

Excellent video. They did a really great job of showing how advertising constantly reinforces strict gender norms within society. Even better, they show that these norms are constructed and even manipulated by people with an agenda rather than being an essential part of a person's makeup. We are constantly confronted by advertising which tells us: "This is what a man is. This is what a woman is." We are influenced and manipulated by it on a daily basis which should be a cause for concern. However, the manipulation and enforcement of strict gender norms is certainly nothing new.

Societies have a long, horrible history of enforcing such norms. On one hand, they hold an essentialist viewpoint: Men are men and women are women. On the other hand, they require the strict policing of gender norms which begin at a very young age. If gender norms are truly an essential part of a person's very being, why is there such a strong need to reinforce these norms through such tactics as ostracism, threats, ridicule, savage violence, and death.

In many parts of the world, people who do not conform to rigid gender norms are often subject to the most brutal violence. When such violence is reported by the media, the victim is often blamed for bringing the violence upon themselves. In the case of Brandon Teena, the brutal rape and murder that was inflicted upon him was blamed upon the fact that he was not open about being a transgender man. When Lawrence King was brutally murdered at the age of 15 by a fellow student, people suggested that he may have been too open. Lawrence wore female clothing and accessories, and he also behaved in non-masculine ways. In both cases, it becomes obvious that the degree of "openness" is not the real issue. The message clearly sent by society is that a refusal to abide by rigid gender norms can result in the most horrible violence, and that it will be your own damn fault.

Many atheists are rightly outraged at the religious indoctrination of children. However, a much more universal indoctrination occurs around the enforcement of these gender norms, and this indoctrination also begins at a very young age. In many societies, masculinity is rigidly enforced through the exclusion and denigration of femininity. Boys are brought into manhood through the use of various rites of passage from which girls are excluded. In addition, boys are constantly reminded of what they should not be through the use of name calling (sissy, pansy, faggot, etc.), taunts, and ridicule. Of course, these societies also view women and femininity as being inferior to men and masculinity. At the start of the book Full Frontal Feminism, Jessica Valenti asks the reader to think of the worst names that you can call a woman. She then asks the reader to think of the worst names that you can call a man. As the exercise shows: "The worst thing you can call a girl is a girl. The worst thing you can call a guy is a girl." The strict separation of gender norms goes hand in hand with the privileging of masculinity and the denigration of femininity by society which has direct implications for the attainment of women's equality.

I think it is reasonable to ask whether a society which prides itself on being free and open can continue to police the rigid enforcement of gender norms. Is childhood indoctrination, threats, gender inequality, and violence consistent with a free society? A truly free society would allow people to simply be themselves without trying to cram them into a rigid and arbitrary category. A free society would treat all people equally regardless of where they fit on the gender continuum. I certainly think that such societies are a long way off.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on June 6, 2010 at 10:49pm

Great comment, Todd.

However, the manipulation and enforcement of strict gender norms is certainly nothing new.

No, definitely not.

If gender norms are truly an essential part of a person's very being, why is there such a strong need to reinforce these norms through such tactics as ostracism, threats, ridicule, savage violence, and death.

Great question. But what do we make of the fact that boys and girls at very, very young ages gravitate to gender-specific toys and activities, even when they are not encouraged to do so. Certainly, there is some truth to gender norms. Take for example transsexuals. A M2F transsexual wants to be perceived, and to act, in female gender specific ways. Doing so is very much a part of who she is as a person.

When Lawrence King was brutally murdered at the age of 15 by a fellow student, people suggested that he may have been too open.

Lawrence King breaks my heart.

However, a much more universal indoctrination occurs around the enforcement of these gender norms, and this indoctrination also begins at a very young age.

Yes, but which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Certainly the norms do reflect some parts of our nature. It is not entirely external pressure that creates gender normative roles.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Todd on June 7, 2010 at 10:32pm

I should probably issue a disclaimer before I answer these questions. My background is in physics not neurophysiology or psychology, so everything I say here could easily be wrong. Even so, I have always been fascinated with gender studies due to my own gender nonconformity. From the studies I have seen, there does seem to be a physiological basis for gender. However, it seems that socialization plays a strong role as well. I would guess that the answer does not lie at either extreme. However, determining which comes first may be extremely difficult, and I am in no position to make a definitive claim.

I do not think it is a problem that male and female children tend to gravitate toward a different set of activities. On average, if girls tend to exhibit more feminine behaviors and boys tend to exhibit more masculine behaviors, that is just fine. However, the key terms here are "on average" and "tend to". The problem is that society often turns this average behavior into an absolute standard, and anyone who falls outside of the norm is punished.

As I said, a free society would allow people to simply be who they are. I have no problems with norms in a purely statistical sense, but what happens to the little boy who prefers to play with the girls or acts in an effeminate manner? What happens to the little girl who likes to play with the boys or exhibits masculine characteristics. Statistically, they may be outside of the norm. Do we simply make note of the fact that variation exists in nature, or do we punish them for not being "normal"?

I strongly agree with Chaz Bono when he said that "Gender Is Between Your Ears, Not Between Your Legs ". It does seem as though some of the physiological differences in the brain that can affect a person's gender occur at a very early stage of development. By the time we leave the womb, some of the structures which determine our gender may already be set in stone.

Our brain determines who we are as a person. In the case of someone who is transgender, their body is out of sync with their identity. A transgender women does not merely desire to be perceived as female, she is female regardless of her outward appearance, and in the same way, a transgender man is male. Society, on the other hand, takes the opposite approach by using a person's genitalia to determine their gender. A newborn child is automatically confined to one of two rigid categories based upon whether or not the child happens to be in possession of a penis. In addition, this determination is set in stone, and any attempt to change it may be met with violence, torture, or death.

It is the tyranny of societally imposed gender roles which needs to be overcome, and not gender variation itself. People should not be punished for where they happen to fit on the gender continuum. Nor should they be forced to lie about who they are for fear of retribution.

If you're interested, the Chaz Bono interview is available here.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on June 8, 2010 at 9:33am

You're so well spoken, Todd. : )

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jordan Leigh on June 8, 2010 at 12:38pm

I agree with many of Todd's points.

In my personal life, most of the times I have experiences the gender confusion breakdown in socialization is when I'm with my sister. The only time I have ever seen my sister be "girly" is when skirts are the uniform (band concerts, school dances) and she has often been mistaken for a boy when we go to malls or other places. What does she wear to generate this confusion? Very baggy pants, loose shirts, and a knit hat over her short hair. From my perspective, fairly neutral clothing, but she is often seen as "he" rather than "she". Maybe we should have a third pronoun or gender category so that people (like my sister) who identify as neither male nor female have their own group, since humans seem to love groups, and they are not simply "other".

In other personal experience, it is more common for people to be confused with the personal hobbies or quirks of males and females than their mannerisms. For example, I have a male friend who won a monologue competition, with a monologue given by a female character (this distressed one of my female friends--for reasons that confused me until I started learning things about masculinity and femininity in society, including this video). In another case, I am often asked which instrument I play in marching band, and when I inform the asker that I play the sousaphone (image here: http://image64.webshots.com/64/6/96/94/501969694JjJMZW_fs.jpg), they are normally surprised at least, schocked at most. As low brass instruments are seen as masculine by the general public, a girl playing the lowest low brass instrument is a small shock to the average person, but I can say that I have seen less stigmatization than boys who play "feminine" instruments such as the flute. Just goes to show that gender roles go everywhere, from advertising to musical expression.

And now, I'm going to mark up my old magazines, especially the ads.

• ▶ Reply