Gebara Chapter 2 – Evil and Gender – thought #2
“To say man or woman is already to introduce a certain way of existing in the world, proper to each sex – a way of being a product of a complex web of cultural relationships. Female and Male also have their effect on relationships between women and men exercised in private and in public.” (pg 68) As sociologist Pierre Bourdieu sees it, “distinct identities are established as habits through an immense and continuous work of socialization. A game of opposition, verified in every culture, occurs between what is attributed symbolically to men and what is attributed symbolically to women.” (pg 68)
WHY DOES IT ALWAYS HAVE TO BE ABOUT OPPOSITION !?!?!?! JEEZ …. THERE IS A REALITY IN WHICH THAT DOES NOT EXIST ! ! ! ! Aaarrgh!
It is a basic Sociological fact (taught in the first few weeks of a Sociology 101 course) that “gender” and “sex” are not synonymous. That “sex” refers to reproductive organs/functions only, and that “gender” is a widely-defined and varied cultural/social perception of what someone possessing a specific biological set of “equipment” is meant to do/be.
The context into which Gebara has put this definition seems to indicate a desire to condemn socialization – the process through which a blank-slated baby learns to become a Human. The fact of the matter is that socialization happens. No matter what. And, for the most part, it’s done both unconsciously, and with intent to prepare a child to be the best and most functioning human it can be. Yes – socialization has also been used viciously … such as in Nazi Germany … but it’s not the process that is to be condemned – it’s the way the process is used when it is specifically directed towards less-than-loving ends.
I will not deny that people get socialized into accepting and embodying negative behaviors. Racism, Sexism, Fear-of-Difference, etc are things that can take hold without ever being consciously taught. (It is for this reason that Plato suggested that children be removed from the home and educated by professionals who had the good of the State as their first priority). And it is also true that parents have a right to raise their child in the best way they know how. Except in cases of abuse or neglect, this right of theirs trumps.
So … I suppose the answer to the dilemma is in changing our OWN behaviors. On a singular, one-person (myself) basis. At least that’s what Gandhi says … BE the change you want to see in the world …
I think I rambled way off topic here. O-well. This is my essay and I’ll do what I want to.
So how do you "be the change" in this circumstance? Consciously point out that gender means nothing about a person? But what if it does?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't scientific research prove that men and women and behaviorally different (think Cinderella Ate My Daughter and the study about chimps and toys)? And as a heterosexual women, won't you automatically teach your children that men are a more ideal match for a woman - that men and women "go together"? Won't your preference rub off in some way as "law" to your children?
Or is it more about how our society treats traditionally "female" positions? A mother's time, energy and investment do not contribute to our nations' measure of success, GNP. Teachers are underpaid. (But nurses aren't underpaid, which is a traditionally female position; and cops and firemen are underpaid, traditional male positions...)
Unravel this for me, woman! It doesn't seem to me like there are clear issues in our society.