Chapter 3 - Constructing and Deconstructing Sex and Gender

Dialectic Home Chap 1 Chap 2 Chap 3
Chap 4 Chap 5 Chap 6 Chap 7

Our sex is a central feature of our selves. Sex is the physiological and physical distinctions between the sexes. From the time we are born, and perhaps before, it shapes other’s expectations of us and our expectations of ourselves. Our sex is a biological fact with biological implications. We know that females and males are different from each other. This “knowing” is supported by a large body of scientific and medical facts. We are taught there are many physiological differences between the sexes: general height/weight differences; hormonal and developmental differences; bodily function differences; and many more. We extend this “knowing” to the less physical where it is generally assumed that there are also mental and emotional differences between the sexes. We extend it again to assume that there are behavioral differences. Lastly, we extend it again to assume that males and females are suited for doing different things. Pretty much regardless of the culture in which we are raised, there is an assumed natural link between all of the above. We may believe these linkages between the physical, emotional, doing, and being are due to nature or to the will (or whimsy) of the gods, but regardless it is considered relatively “fixed.”


Many of you are probably arguing at this point that all of this isn’t “natural;” that we are individuals and we make choices; that being male or female may affect a lot of things in our lives, but what we do in the world is based upon what we want to do - not physically “coded” into our basic biological makeup. This argument has arisen in many places in the world, and in the United States, the belief that one’s sex is not one’s destiny has reached a general level of acceptance. This conflict of ideas between the physical nature of sex and the effect it has on our lives is commonly known as the “nature - nurture debate.” How much of our behavior is “natural” (meaning coded into our physical bodies) and how much is nurture (meaning that we have learned it or chosen it in one way or another)?


Most scientists, and most people in the U.S., agree that those things we see as sex differences are a combination of “nature” and “nurture.” Most sociologists lean towards the nurture side of the debate saying that socialization, social construction of sex and gender, and social structuring play a predominant role in our interpretations of what sex means and how it works in the world. From a social science perspective, total dependence on a nature, or god-given explanation of sex differences is known as reification. Reification is the taking of a concept and calling it a natural phenomenon.


In the U.S. (and other places around the world) two terms - sex and gender - are being used interchangeably, or as synonyms for each other. Sociologists and other social scientists treat these two terms as independent concepts.


Sex refers to biological sex differences. Most of the time we assume that these are visible differences between the sexes - most specifically, sex organs and the noticeable presence or absence of breasts. Sex is considered an ascribed status because our determination of peoples sex based upon these visible characteristics. Cultures generally then build upon these differences, or accentuate them through blatant and subtle mechanisms. Blatant means would be such things has hair styles, clothes, and types of bodily decoration. Subtle means would include such things as body movement, (i.e. standing, walking, sitting, gestures, and freedom of motions) space (how much physical space a person is allowed in their interactions with others), as well as pitch and tone of voice.


We are socialized to the paradigm that there are two sexes - female and male. We generally assume that the cultural accentuations of sex differences reflect biology – especially the subtle accentuations. While there is most likely some sex-based differences in movement and voice, those differences are generally exaggerated by culture. For example, there most likely is a natural difference in voice pitch and tone between males and females; however, societies frequently maximize those differences. In the United States, it is not at all unusual for males to “practice” using a lower pitch of voice (especially during puberty) and for females to “practice” using a higher pitch. People are also trained to different forms of speech. For example, we generally don’t notice that males are more likely to talk with a falling tone of voice at the end of sentences (ending a sentence with a “period” sound) while females are more likely to end sentences with a rising tone of voice (ending a sentence with a “question” sound).


Despite what seems the naturalness of this division of the sexes into two sexes (regardless of differences across cultures), and the assumption that everyone is either one sex or another, a significant portion of the human population does not fit the two sex category. There is an increasing amount of discussion in medicine, the social and behavioral sciences, and the popular media about intersexuals. These are individuals who biologically are neither –or both – male or female. Historically, these individuals have been referred to as “hermaphrodites,” but that term is so laden with mythology that “intersexual” is now more commonly used. Perhaps because of the mythological linkage with the term hermaphrodite, the common perception exists that these people either don’t exist, or exist in such small numbers as to be simple “freaks of nature.” However, it is estimated that up to four percent of the human population is known to be intersexual at birth (Fausto-Sterling, 1996: 69). This is roughly the same number of individuals who are born with cystic fibrosis. Another way to look at this, would be in a typical college student body of 8,ooo, there would be 320 intersexuals (Fausto-Sterling, 1996: 69). There may be more intersexuals than this because some are not “discovered” until they reach puberty.


While more public attention is being paid to intersexuals, misinformation and myth colors what most people know. The myth of the hermaphrodite is an individual who is “half man - half woman.” These half and half individuals are generally referred to in the medical literature as “true hermaphrodites,” but the combination of sex characteristics and chromosomal makeup varies. Other “combinations” are referred to as “pseudo-hermaphrodites,” and once again there is tremendous variation. [See Box 3.1]. 


The usual manner in which intersexual infants are dealt with in Western medicine is through a number of surgeries in early childhood, followed by hormonal treatments starting at puberty. The first clue to intersexuality is “ambiguous genitalia.” This ambiguity, as noted in Box 3.1, often comes down to a judgement call. In other words, the doctor(s) decide that a penis is too small, or

Box 3.1

The following quotation is from “A Question of Gender” by Emily Nussbaum.


“Sex, in reality, is more than the simple blueprint learned in high-school biology--XX for female, XY for male. All embryos are identical for the first eight weeks of gestation, and then several factors nudge the infant toward male or female development. But some embryos step off track.


The cause can be chromosomal or hormonal. Infants with androgen insensitivity syndrome, for example, have XY cells but cannot process testosterone, and they look like females. An inherited condition called 5-alpha-reductase deficiency triggers an apparent female-to-male sex change at puberty. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia--the most common intersexual condition--results from hormonal imbalances that masculinize the genitals of XX children. Scientists speculate that such an imbalance may also masculinize the brain, establishing gender and sexual orientation.


Intersexual infants range from hard-to-classify ... to those with much subtler anomalies. To some degree, intersexuality is in the eye of the medical beholder: A large clitoris may be considered normal by one doctor, ambiguous by another. One thing all intersexual children have in common, however, is that modern medicine regards them, in the words of the surgical training videotape Surgical Reconstruction of Ambiguous Genitalia in Female Children, as a "social and psychological emergency." Surgeons typically perform plastic surgery early on to protect the child--and, not incidentally, the parents--from any sense of ambiguity.”

a clitoris is too big. The surgeries required to “correct” these anomalies are not easy or painless. In essence, these children are having sex change operations. While surgery may be medically necessary in some cases, much of the surgery is cosmetic. However, the cosmetic surgery is sometimes portrayed as necessary – for example, a mother of an intersexed infant named Emma (Nussbaum, 2000:95). Emma’s mother, Vicki, was led to believe that the surgery on her daughter to move her urethral opening was medically necessary in order to prevent infections, and to simplify a clitoriplasty (reduction of the clitoris) later on (Vicki had refused clitoriplasty feeling it should be up to Emma). However, after the surgery, she was informed that the surgery was largely cosmetic rather than medically necessary.


Intersexuality has achieved public attention in part because intersexual adults are speaking out about their experiences. One of the most vocal organizations is the Intersex Society of North American (ISNA). The experiences and activism of intersexuals has stimulated significant examination of this issue from researchers and clinicians. Given the major medical intervention required at such a young age, the trauma of the procedures, and the relative taboo about discussing intersexuality, sex correction is being discussed as a analogous to childhood sexual abuse.

ole.gif


(http://home.t-online.de/home/aggpg/parent.htm#wha, Alexander, 2000). Another issue that intersexuals raise is whether surgery that is not medically necessary should be performed without the informed consent of the patient.


Most people who take the time to read, or listen to, the voices of intersexuals, or simply to read the current literature, might well come to the same conclusion as Anne Fausto-Sterling.

Given the recent debate about intersexuality and its treatment, the persistence of it across recorded history, and intersexuals’ arguments that they are not “accidents,” some people are questioning the validity of the two-sex paradigm. Even those who just take the time to read the current literature or listen to intersexual’s start questioning this paradigm. Perhaps the most well known author in this area is Anne Fausto-Sterling. Dr. Fausto-Sterling is a geneticist and professor of medical science at Brown University, and has been writing extensively about intersexuality and gender since at least 1985. Based upon her clinical experience, she has presented the theory that there are at least five sexes (Fausto-Sterling 1996:68-73). Fausto-Sterling’s argument is essentially that for as long as we know there have been individuals who biologically were neither male or female but combinations of both. These people are broadly referred to as “intersexuals,” or more commonly as hermaphrodites.


Historically, standard western medicine has treated this phenomenon as a mistake, and more recently has been able through surgery and hormone therapy to cosmetically make people “fit” into the two sex paradigm. However, largely due to the increasing voice of intersexuals, questions have been raised as to whether intersexuals are due to a dysfunction during the gestation process, or are a normal variation on human sex possibilities. The paradigm she presents is one of a continuum of sex rather than a dichotomy (see Figure 3.1). She argues that in addition to males and females, there are the “true hermaphrodites” and at least two groups of “pseudo-hermaphrodites” – “merms” and “ferms.” True hermaphrodites are those who are biologically roughly equal parts male and female. Merms have the XY chromosome but may also have ovaries and a vagina, while ferms have the XX chromosome but may also have testes and a penis (Fausto-Sterling, 1996:69).



Certainly part of the reason there is a rush to “correct” the ambiguity of the sex of intersexuals is because of the link between sex and gender. Gender reflects the social and personal characteristics a society assigns to the sexes. It is those things that we may consider personality characteristics such as aggressiveness, nurturing, emotional responses, etc. Gender can be considered the “being” part of social assignment. It is how we are supposed to be the sex we are assigned. Since our gender socialization starts at birth, it has been considered critical that the sex of a child be properly determined so that there is no gender confusion in socialization. This is an interesting conclusion for doctors to have come to because the common assumption, and a point frequently argued, is that those characteristics that are socially assigned to the sexes (what we are calling gender) are considered by most to be a “natural” consequence of our sex.


Gender is part of what we might call our “core” identity since it starts so early in our lives and persists throughout our lives. The way that our culture has constructed gender will have deep and significant effects on us throughout our lives. It will affect the way we see ourselves and how others see us. It will affect our expectations of how to be in the world.


In the mainstream U.S. construction of sex and gender, there are two sexes and two genders which correspond to them. A reflection of treating sex and gender as the “same thing” is that on many forms that ask us to specify our sex, the wording has been changed to “gender.” This formalization in practice of the two concepts being identical compounds the naturalness of thinking of them as one and inseparable.


We have already discussed above the possibility of multiple sexes; however, many societies have more than two genders, even if they only note two sexes. Examples of this are what has broadly been labeled the “berdache tradition.” The word “berdache” derives from an Arab word meaning “male prostitute” or “catamite” (Lang, 1998). Anthropologists, and others, have broadly applied this term to a number of different gender, gender role, and sexual orientation variations (i.e. cross-gender, intersexual, transvestism, and homosexuality) across cultures. A wide cross section of cultures across the globe have more than two genders. India has a third gender known as the “hijras,” so do the Hua of Papua New Guinea, and Omani Muslims to name a few (Renzetti and Curran, 2000: 42).


Resistance to the term “berdache” has arisen among “other gendered” Native Americans who have selected the term “two-spirit” as more appropriate. This new term is closer in essence to a perspective that other genders and orientations are not simply physical or acted out in the physical world, but are part of a more wholistic mind/body/spirit connection. A wide representation of American Indian tribes and bands have recorded inclusion of multiple genders, sexes, and sexual orientations as part of their cultures. Table 3.1 below was created by combining information from Sabine Lang’s review of the literature on two-spirit people among American Indian tribes and bands (Lang, 1998: 248-251, 263-265).



Table 3.1 American Indian Terms for Multiple Gender Individuals

Tribe

Term for Males

Term for Females

Crow

bate

woman chief

Eskimo

anasik

uktasik

Hopi

na’dle

nadle

Klamath

twinnaek

twinna’ek

Maidu

suku

suku

Maricopa

yesa’an

kwiraxame

Shoshone (Nevada)

tuyayan

nűwűdűka

Zuni

ko’thalama

katsotse


Not knowing the languages of the tribes above, we can only speculate on whether they include a third gender that designates both males and females, or whether there are two additional genders one for male and one for female two-spirit people. Not all cultures, and this exemplified by Lang’s work, make the two-spirit designation the same way, construct it similarly, or treat two-spirit people the same way. In some groups, intersexuality falls into a joint category with gender and in others it does not. In some cultures two-spirit people are of any sexual orientation and in others they are only bisexual or homosexual. In some cultures they take on the dress and social roles of the opposite gender and in others they do not. In some cultures they are considered normal or held in high esteem, while in others they are stigmatized and held in low regard.


All of these permutations of sex, gender, and sexual orientation, point to cultures’ dealing with human variation in their specific cultural contexts. This argues for a persistent “naturalness” in that these variations as human, but it also points toward the virtually limitless social constructions. Individuals who are of these additional gender categories, are not necessarily either transvestites or homosexual in orientation – they are a separate gender. Also, while there is considerable similarity among general gender expectations cross culturally, there is not total consistency. Both the multiple gender, and gender expectation variation support a social construction of sex and gender perspective, rather than a “natural” order of things.


Gender identity is our internal identification with a gender. It means that we see ourselves within the gender construction of our society. It is an internal knowing that we are a specific gender. Some argue that we also have a sexual identity. This is an internal identification with and “knowing” of our biological sex. Obviously there are many possibilities here, even within the constraints of a two-sex/two-gender system. However, within the constraints of the sex/gender paradigm of mainstream U.S. society, there is only one “acceptable” possibility – consistency between biological sex and social gender assignment.


Males and females are usually expected to take on different roles within the society. These are usually referred to as sex (gender) roles. Sex (gender) roles are social roles assigned to the various gender groups. As you can see from the definition, sex roles could be more appropriately named “gender roles,” and I will refer to them as such throughout this text. They are linked to gender in specific ways as the characteristics that are assigned to the genders are frequently the underpinning of why males and females should do different things within the society. As you may recall, I said that gender could be considered the “being” part of sex within a society. Gender roles can be considered the “doing” part of sex within a society.


Gender roles are those “jobs” that people are expected to do in a society. They may include such things as mother or father, but extend into the sexual division of labor. For example, tasks and jobs (or employment) that are considered most appropriate for one sex or another might include such things as secretaries, nurses, childcare workers, and grade school teachers as “female” jobs, and construction worker, doctor, president, or mechanic as “male” jobs. In the case of those cultures with more than two genders, two-spirit people take on the same or opposite gender roles, or have specific gender roles that apply to their status.


Finally, we have sexual orientation. Sexual orientation can be considered the basic orientation of physical and emotional attraction. I use the term orientation rather than “preference” for a variety of reasons. First, it is something which is internal. It is part of how we see ourselves – in other words it is part of our identity. Second, it appears to be relatively unchangeable. Our sexual orientation is a relatively fixed, and is not a matter of choice. Last, preference connotes choice and it presumes acting on that choice. We may or may not act on our basic attraction. Many people who see themselves as homosexual engage solely in heterosexual (opposite sex) sexual activity, while many who see themselves as heterosexual may engage in homosexual (same sex) sexual activity during their lives. While sexual activity may be linked to sexual orientation, it is not necessarily predictive of it.


In the United States, there has been considerable rhetoric defining sexual orientation as sexual activity. Further, is the underlying assumption that sexual orientation is confined to sexual activity. I think that most of us in looking at ourselves, would not limit our orientation only to those times we are actively engaged in sexual activity. It pervades our lives in a variety of ways beyond any physical action we may take in the world.


Like sex and gender, sexual orientation is dealt with in a dichotomous, either/or, manner. We are either heterosexual or homosexual. There is no room for bisexuality within this paradigm, which in part accounts for the generally negative view of bisexuality. There is research dating from the Kinsey reports on human sexuality (1948 and 1953) and Masters and Johnson (1966) that have consistently shown sexual orientation to be a continuum from total heterosexuality to total homosexuality. Footnote We might visualize this continuum as depicted in Figure 3.2 below.

Total heterosexuals show no, or even negative, physical sexual response to same sex visual stimuli, and total homosexuals show the same to opposite sex visual stimuli. A variety of clinical studies have been done using various forms of stimuli; however much of the material presented during the studies is not sexual, or even erotic, in nature. Some include simple scenes of same and opposite sex couples engaging in behavior such as eating dinner or talking at a café.


sexxcu~1.gif

It should be mentioned here that it is difficult to remove bias from the study of sexual orientation. Given the stigma of homosexuality in U.S. society, self-reports are likely to be weighted towards heterosexual responses. Clinical studies are generally focused on physiological response to a wide array of stimuli, but focus towards sexual response. Since our sexual orientation seems to be highly complex and not simply sexual response, one can question whether these studies can be expanded to sexual orientation. A further problem may arise with studies of orientation in terms of who participates in these studies. Are they reflective of the general human population, or even a particular culture’s population? These problems aside, the research evidence tends to support the theory of a continuum rather than a dichotomy.



Let’s look at an “exception” -- people who are transsexual. Transsexual are individuals who for whatever reason feel they are in the “wrong body,” or that the sex of the body they are in is wrong. Let’s assume that we have a female transsexual who has a heterosexual orientation (in her original female body she is oriented towards males). Now she has a sex change operation that changes her sex to male. What happens to her previous sexual orientation? NOTHING! He is still oriented towards males, but now his orientation is labeled “homosexual.” One thing that this demonstrates is that the labeling of sexual orientation is an external manifestation that may or may not reflect the inner reality of the individual.


Table 3.2 depicts the paradigm of the construction of sex, gender and sexual orientation for mainstream U.S. society. Not all societies have the same construct.


 

Table 3.2 Paradigm of Sex, Gender and Sexual Orientation in Mainstream U.S. Society

Sex

Female

Male

Gender

Female

Male

Gender Role

Feminine

Masculine

Sexual Orientation

Heterosexual

Heterosexual



Table 3.2 outlines the mainstream U.S. conception of the constellation of sex, gender, and sexual orientation. Scientific and social research aside, the general construction is that these are a “package deal.” In other words, people are born biologically male; have a male gender assignment, act as males are supposed to act, and are heterosexual. Conversely, people are born biologically female; have a female gender assignment, act as females are supposed to act, and are heterosexual. Variations from this construct are seen as dysfunctional, sick, wrong, or at least odd.


As has been discussed earlier, there are numerous “exceptions” to the “rule” as ordained by the culture. These “exceptions” are “natural” in that they seem to occur in virtually all human groups, but social in that they are treated in such a variety of ways. Intersexuality can challenge our perspective of a two-sex paradigm. Varying genders, gender roles, and gender identity challenge the limitations of the sex-gender package within mainstream U.S. society. And the research on the continuum of sexual orientation challenges the dichotomy of heterosexual and homosexual as the only two orientation possibilities.


Within the framework of the U.S. construction, if someone does not seem “appropriate” in terms of gender or gender role, they are generally assumed to be homosexual. If someone is homosexual, it is assumed they are “opposite” in terms of gender identity or even that they want to be (or perhaps are) the opposite sex. If you refer to Table 3.2 as we go through an example, you will see the internal consistency to the U.S. model, though externally it is nonsensical. Let’s say that we have a male who is an interior decorator. The general assumption is that he is “gay,” and has a female gender identity therefore he takes on a female gender role. In short, he “switches sides” of the model from male to female and it becomes a “consistent package” again. . . . Or does it? Now that he is on the female side of the model, he is now “heterosexual” again in that he is “female-labeled.” However, if he is gay, he is supposedly sexually relating to other males who are switching sides of the model which actually places them in a female-female relationship -- according to the model.


It is obvious from looking at the U.S. model that there is no place for bisexuals. Bisexuals are generally seen by both those who identify as heterosexual and homosexual as being “straight” when they are in an opposite sex relationship, and “gay” when they are in a same sex relationship. In other words, bisexuality, like homosexuality is based upon sexual activity -- not sexual orientation. Bisexuals are also stereotyped as being hyper-sexual, or sexually indiscriminate. In reality, they are no more so than the general population. Just as a “heterosexual orientation” does not determine the number of one’s sexual partners, or one’s likelihood of remaining faithful, neither does bisexuality (or for that matter homosexuality). The idea of bisexuality as an orientation does not fit the U.S. mainstream construction, and is broken down to “activity” so it does fit.


One question that students frequently raise is why does society seem less harsh on women’s sexual orientation than on men’s? In other words, why does male homosexuality seem to get a stronger response than women’s homosexuality, and why is bisexuality currently seen as being more acceptable than bisexual men? The answer, or at least part of it, lies in the definition of sex within the society. “Real sex” is seen as involving a penis. If a penis is not involved, it is not “real sex.” The definition of sex is constructed around male sexuality -- it is male-defined. As such the sexuality of women (including in heterosexual relationships) has generally been seen as unimportant or secondary. Because of this definition, only men, or sex with men, is sex. Female-female sexuality is seen as not being really sex, and is frequently eroticized for the titillation of males. Just because generally there is not as strong a negative response to female-female sexuality, does not mean that the punishments for it can not be as significant as for gay males. Those perceived as lesbian are harassed, raped, beaten, and murdered as are males perceived to be gay. While there are reporting problems, it is likely that lesbians are more likely to be raped than gay men are to be beaten because the purported “cure” for lesbianism is sex with a man. No such folk cure is promoted to change the sexual orientation of a man.


The Workings of Power

What do you think of when you consider the word “power?” You might come up with a list such as strength, control, money, influence, and freedom. Sex is part of the stratification system, and in mainstream U.S. society, males have higher status than females. Please think back to Table 3.2, and the areas of sex, gender, gender roles, and sexual orientation. Now look at Figure 3.3a below.









ole1.gif








On the far left of the continuum is extreme masculinity, we might think of Conan the Barbarian. On the far right is extreme femininity, for example Barbie. Now think about how far females can move towards the male side of the continuum in terms of gender, gender role, and sexual orientation before they receive serious sanctions. Think in terms of mainstream U.S. society, because appropriate gender/gender role behavior varies considerably across cultures. While there are certainly many considerations, try to think in generic terms, or in most situations. Now do the same thing for males. How far can males move towards the male side of the continuum in terms of gender, gender role, and sexual orientation before they receive serious sanctions?

 



ole2.gif











Figure 3.3b represents where most people generally place the boundaries of acceptable behavior for males and females. There are certainly those situations when those boundaries can move in either direction, and certain things that individuals might do to make it “acceptable” for them to engage in opposite gender role activities. For example, a woman might be able to engage in highly masculine behavior without too many negative sanctions if she made a “convincing demonstration of femininity – a female heavy equipment operator who pastes pictures of her boyfriend or husband on the dash board of her rig, or a female body builder who wears lots of makeup and high heels during competition.




On the other hand, it is much more difficult for males to “explain away” what is seen as inappropriate gender behavior – especially with males. Homophobia (fear of homosexuality and homosexuals) is frequently used by males in a joking (or not so joking) manner to let males know they are in dangerous behavior territory. Comments such as “are you going queer on us,” or are you’re a sissy” are not uncommon. The tone may be joking, but the warning is explicitly clear.


Some people argue that the middle of the continuum reflects the boundary for both sexes as the middle would be “androgynous,” or an equal combination of both female and male characteristics. Being androgynous has been a model that has waxed and waned in popularity – especially in terms of psychology. However, when we think about actual androgynous behavior, it is not judged the same for both males and females. Let’s take assertiveness for example. Think of a man and a woman in identical situations being equally assertive. Do we perceive them as acting in the same way? Generally not. Most people will judge the man as being too weak, and the woman as being aggressive. This is because their behavior is being judged against societal male and female norms.


If the placement of the gender boundaries are generally correct, we have a major conundrum (a very puzzling situation). If we think of status and power, the general assumption is that those with power can do whatever they want. They have all the control, make the rules, etc. If that is the case, why do males in U.S. mainstream society have significantly less gender and gender role range than females? Or conversely, why do women (who are lower status) seem to have more role range than males?


There are several things at work here. First, if we think about general U.S. mainstream values, we have the value of equality, and the value that one is supposed to “improve” themselves. In a system where males have higher status, and equality and higher status are defined as lying within the male domain, women must move towards the male standard in order to “improve” in the broader societal environment - though this is not necessarily improvement as females. This role expansion for females is more acceptable in the public domain of work than in the private domain of personal relationships. In other words, women moving into male job occupations is largely considered acceptable, but they should remain as “feminine” as possible within that environment.


The second area is boundary maintenance. In the environment of cultural values mentioned above, the pressure on maintaining the status boundary for males becomes more difficult. The “line” becomes clearer and harsher, and norm violations stricter for males. While males are given a number of privileges and freedoms to compensate for this restriction, the restriction is still there.


I want to stress that the discussion here is focused on the mainstream U.S. manifestation of sex and gender, and this is not “global.” What is considered appropriate for males and females and their associated roles and behavioral ranges, can and do vary significantly across cultures. There are those cultures where the two are totally distinct and relatively narrow. There are those cultures where multiple genders (and sexes) as discussed earlier in the chapter, create a totally different system.


Sex and Socialization

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, our sex is considered critically important by our society. At birth, we enter into a society with deep social constructions of sex and gender. We don’t choose this, but we cannot escape it. Our society’s construction of sex, gender and sexual orientation will shape and affect us in innumerable ways throughout our lives. Therefore, our socialization (internalization of cultural aspects) into our status and roles pervasive is throughout all forms of socialization we receive. We examined socialization as a concept in Chapter One, so I won’t repeat that information here. If you need to refresh your understanding of socialization, review Building Block 3 in Chapter One.


At birth, and for some before birth due to modern medical technology that allows the determination of a fetus’ sex in utero, we are given a name which is generally appropriate to our sex rather than appropriate to either sex. This naming places us immediately as people first interact with us as telling the difference between male and female infants is virtually impossible with diapers and clothes on. Frequently, sex appropriate clothing and accessories will be placed on us. Girls get pinks and “feminine” prints and patterns while boys get blues and “masculine patterns. In some social classes, a special room may be set up and designed specifically with our sex in mind. The color and patterns on the walls; the play things; our bassinet and even diaper bags and pacifiers may be selected with our sex in mind. Family members, family friends and even strangers, are bombarded by our sex so that they will respond to us from birth in the manner appropriate to our sex.


While the world is responding to us in a sex appropriate manner, they are also teaching and eliciting from us gender appropriate responses. Female infants are held more, coddled, and responded to more quickly when they cry. Male infants are held less, played with more physically (twirling them, throwing them into the air, etc) and responded to more slowly or ignored when they cry. Female infants behavior is interpreted through a “feminine lens” and male infants behavior through a “masculine lens.” Infants who do not engage in what is considered sex appropriate behavior at even this early age can raise concerns of parents and others.


Certainly as infants mature into young childhood the expectation of gender appropriate behavior increases and the penalties for inappropriate behavior intensifies. Males especially get the message to “be tough,” and “boys don’t cry.” Females may not get these explicit messages, but the implicit ones are clear. Girls are allowed to cry and responded to with comfort (generally), they are told to be gentle and encouraged to be so. Very early on they are frequently given their own “babies” (stuffed animals, baby dolls) and even “homes” (play houses, house settings including family members, kitchen sets, etc) as play objects. Boys are given items appropriate to their gender – sports equipment, action toys, toy trucks, cars and heavy equipment, “work benches,” and construction toys. Girls get dolls and boys get action figures and most children know the difference.


Early on we are separated by sex to play – girls with girls doing girl things, boys with boys doing boy things. It is interesting to consider the similarities and differences between boys and girls play activities. Boys play generally involves imagination, but it is in a “real context.” They actually construct things with the tool toys, actually move sand with the equipment, play competitive games with the sporting goods, and engage in “war play.” Girls, on the other hand, generally engage in a very different kind of play. They take care of their “babies,” cook imaginary food and serve it to real and imaginary guests/families, etc. Much more of what girls do requires creation not only of the play, but play members.


Generally speaking, as children grow there is not a convergence in their play or interests. For all the changes regarding women’s sports, most girls do not pursue it the way boys do. With the introduction of Nintendos, Play-Stations, video games, and computerized games, we see “gender appropriateness” continue with different games marketed to boys and girls. Taking these things into consideration and leaving out educational biases, it is not surprising that boys and girls “like” different things – a difference that largely continues throughout the life course and affects educational, occupational, and hobby choice. What is amazing is not the lack of women who go into math, science, and technology (or boys who go into language arts, social work, or secretarial/clerical), but that educators and researchers continue to be dismayed that they don’t suddenly “change” despite efforts to do so.


This persistence of differentiation is frequently pointed to as support for the argument that these differences are a “normal and natural” consequence of biological sex differences. This takes us back to the heart of the nature - nurture debate in relationship to sex and gender. From a sociological perspective, it is basically impossible to separate out what is natural differences between the sexes from what is learned because we are affected by “nurture” from the moment of our birth. It would be highly unethical, and probably result in the death of the child, to isolate a sufficient sample of female and male infants from all human and social influences at birth and see what “natural” differences arise. Those who support the “nature” side of the debate argue that there are brain differences between males and females (as evidenced through studies of primarily adults). However, this difference is not necessarily “natural” as brain areas and pathways change depending on use - like any muscle does. Consistent and prolonged activity is going to strengthen activity aspects of the brain - both physical and mental activities. Males are considered to have better spatial skills than females, but look at what most young boys are doing – things involving spatial skills (throwing and catching balls for example). Females on the other hand are considered to have better verbal skills, but look at what they are doing – talking, and conversing, and making up conversations, even reading to their dolls). These activity differences are going to develop different pathways in the brain because that is how pathways are made in the brain – through practice and repetition.


Socialization agents teach us through example and reiteration, through positive and negative reinforcements, and through explicit statements, how we are to be our gender within the society. These agents are the same whether we are discussing gender and gender role socialization, socialization into other status positions, or the general values and norms of the society – family, peers, religious organizations, schools, media, etc. We will examine some of the ways gender and gender role socialization occurs below.


Gender and Stories

Stories, including children’s stories are a strong form of socialization. In U.S. mainstream culture, we are taught that stories are for the most part for entertainment – not for teaching. When we think about the term “story” we are immediately faced with at least two possible meanings - true stories and made-up stories. In English we use the same word for both meanings, but the general assumption is that “story” is fictitious unless it is specified in some way as a “true” story. This way of designating stories focuses us on different things. In a “true story” we are taught to focus on the events and content of the story – we are listening for “facts.” Conversely, when we listen to or read a story, we are focusing on the context, looking for the plot or meaning. While this distinction becomes clear when we think about it, generally speaking, we see stories as not having any implicit meaning - they are simply diverting entertainment.


This perception of stories then leads us to believe that whether we are looking at children’s books and fairy tales, watching cartoons or movies, or reading novels and short stories, that we are just being entertained. This perception can lull us into not knowing what we actually take away from “stories.” Let’s look at a couple of common fairy tales.


Most people raised in the U.S. are familiar with the tale of Jack and the Beanstalk. Jack is a young boy who lives in a stereotypical female-headed household. His father died and left Jack and his mother in dire economic straits. Jack’s mother struggles valiantly along, but eventually there just isn’t enough money for them to survive. The only thing they have of value is a cow. Jack’s mother explains the situation to Jack and ask’s him to take the cow to the village and sell it. So Jack sets out with the cow for the village.


He doesn’t get very far down the road before he runs into a stranger. This man asks Jack where he’s going with that fine cow. Jack tells him the story and the stranger says he would like to trade for the cow. He tells Jack about these magic beans and how they are better than the little money he would get selling the cow. Jack agrees to the trade and heads back home. Upon arriving his mother asks Jack if he sold the cow - of course the response is “not exactly.” Jack tells her about the “magic beans” and how it was a great deal. Not surprisingly Jack’s mother is crushed and outraged. She takes the beans and throws them out the window and sends Jack to his room.


The next morning Jack wakes up early so he can sneak out of the house without confronting his mother. Upon exiting, he sees the huge vines that have grown all the way into the clouds. He realizes that these are from his magic beans and might as well check out where they go – anyway it will be a fine adventure. So Jack climbs and climbs and ultimately arrives at a land that is totally unfamiliar. He starts exploring, sees a huge castle in the distance and heads towards it.


Ultimately he arrives at the castle and it is indeed huge. He sneaks in and finds that two giants live there – a giant and the giant’s wife. He decides to follow the giant around. The giant goes out to the barnyard and goes to a goose. He starts collecting the goose eggs and Jack sees they are made of gold. Thinking this will patch things up with his mother, he decides to steal one. He waits and plots, and ultimately attempts to steal an egg. Unfortunately, the goose raises such a ruckus that the giant runs out and catches him. The giant locks him a cage in the kitchen and tells his wife to keep an eye on him. Of course, she complies.


As the giant’s wife goes about her chores in the kitchen, Jack tells her his sad story and she takes pity on him. She decides to let him escape and lets him go. Jack, not wanting to leave empty handed, steals an egg, goes to the beanstalk and shimmies down. Upon arriving home, his mother is tremendously relieved to see him. He presents her with the golden egg and tells his fantastic story. They buy new clothes, furniture, food, another cow etc., and live a fine life for a while. Then the money runs out. Jack decides to revisit the giant’s realm and steal not another egg, but the goose. So he climbs back up the beanstalk, gets chased by the giant and the giant’s wife (who we gather had gotten into a lot of trouble for letting Jack go), but ultimately he grabs the goose and runs - giant in pursuit. He practically flies down the beanstalk where his mother is waiting at the bottom. He hands her the goose, and chops down the beanstalk, and they live happily and comfortably for the rest of their lives.


When we look at the story, what is it telling us?


Messages in Jack and the Beanstalk

Make your own decisions even if your mother tells you something different

Take risks - it can pay off

Have adventures

Be physical

Support your family

It’s okay to steal if you really need to

Anything is fair if your opponent has an advantage

Women are soft-hearted

If you have money you have everything

Don’t steal an egg when you can steal the whole goose

The end justifies the means

etc.


Now Jack is a boy. When you think about this story and you think about how males are “supposed to be” in mainstream U.S. culture, what is the relationship to male gender and gender role expectations? For sake of comparison, think for a moment about the tale of Little Red Ridinghood. What messages are there in this tale and what is the correlation to female gender messages and expectations?


Both of these are simple, entertaining stories. However both, and thousands like them contain explicit and implicit messages about how we are supposed to be in the world. Children do not miss these messages, but parents frequently do.


Gender and the Media

It is not just children’s stories that convey how we are supposed to be men and women in the world. There is little doubt that whether in movies, advertising, the news, fiction and non-fiction books, etc., there are significant differences in how males and females are portrayed, and even the number that are portrayed. First there are dramatically more men than women portrayed in virtually all media. Second, males and females are most frequently portrayed very differently. Men are doing things and women are generally portrayed as adjuncts to males – frequently sexual adjuncts.


The media, especially the televised media, plays a key role in socialization today – and not only gender and gender role socialization. There are at least three major reasons that this medium carries such socialization force. First, is its persistence in most peoples’ lives in the United States from very early in life – the lifetime averages are between five and seven hours a day. Second, it is highly visual and our brains respond differently to visual images than to verbal images. We tend to believe what we see because we do not automatically process it cognitively. Third, in order for television programs to be popular, they must resonate with the conceptualizations of the public (or at least a good part of it). Because of this “resonance,” it portrays images, beliefs, and relationships that are part of the cultural value system, and the current cultural construction of reality. “Real” crime has become a popular prime time genre and serves to blur the distinction between reality and fiction. One assumes in watching “real crime” shows that one is seeing reality, but this is not true in a variety of ways. First comes in what is selected to be on the shows, and second that much is reenactment rather than actual. These shows build upon and expand the cultural constructions of victims and criminals and police responses to them. They generally reinforce stereotypes.


Cavendar and Bond-Maupin (1999) did research on several seasons of the popular “America’s Most Wanted” real crime television show spanning a period from 1989 - 1996. According to the study of Cavendar and Bond-Maupin, as well as others, white women were significantly over represented as victims and this trend increased between the 1989 season and the 1996 season (from 67% to 74% of female victims). “Real” victims as portrayed in “real” crime shows play on the cultural image of who is innocent – young, white, women and children or young married mothers. The images presented appeal to the vulnerability of women to male physical and sexual aggression.


While these “real crime” shows and popular media portray images of women, they also portray images of men. Men as criminals, men as aggressors, men as protectors, as competent, as strong, etc. Beauty images are created for both males and females, as well as appropriate gender behavior and roles. While much of the focus of gender analysis of the media has been on women (largely because of feminist researchers), the models for males are equally strong. If an image of beauty and behavior is constructed for women, at the very least the message to men is to desire that image, and that acquiring it reflects his status as a male. This certainly reflects not just the social construction of gender and gender roles, but the social construction of sexual desire and orientation as well.


The pervasiveness of white female beauty does not confine itself only to white women (and men), but to men and women of color, and to those across the globe who are inundated with U.S. media and advertisements. On February 2, 1999, Nightline aired a story called “Erasing Race.” It discussed the practice of some people of color and “ethnic” people engaging in plastic surgery to bring them closer to the white European norm of features. In an interview with a plastic surgeon (Dr. Harold Clavin) he stated about 40 percent of his patients are people trying to “erase some ethnic feature.” In other words, they are trying to look more like what is considered the “beauty standard.” This effort to fit a different standard is discussed at length in the book Venus Envy by Elizabeth Haiken.(1997). In the interview on Nightline she stated:

 

“We as a society have to look at what we mean when we use words like "pretty" and "beautiful." We're constantly flooded with images of what is beautiful, what is pretty, what is acceptable, what is normal. And most of the images are of white people. “


When she was asked how common plastic surgery to erase ethnic features was, she responded: “It's quite common. And in many ways, it's becoming more common as ethnic minority groups move into income levels where they can afford cosmetic surgery.”


While all of this pressure towards a “white” beauty norm is not solely the responsibility of the media, a fair amount of it is. As Jean Kilgore in the video “The Ad and the Ego” notes, the difference between beauty depicted in ancient art and sculpture and that being presented now is that we now have essentially one standard that is permeating peoples’ lives. It is an image that is present everywhere one looks whether it is in the privacy of one’s own home watching television, or in the public spaces of the society. This pervasive presence imprints itself in a way that no art work or sculpture ever could. And if the image is that pervasive and has such dramatic impacts from styles and fashions, to construction of beauty, then certainly the gendered contexts in which these images are presented are no less impactful.


And so on . . .

The enforcements and reinforcements for gender, gender role, and sexual orientation are all around us, seeping into every crack in our consciousness. They shape our view of ourselves and our world view. They shape our relationships with others be they strangers or intimates or characters in a movie. Certainly some people resist, live and be a different way, but the images and expectations still pervade our environment and sometimes our consciousness. Remember that socialization is at least in part a process of internalization. It is that internalization that casts the doubts and nags us. It is that internal voice that we may try not to listen to that says we are too fat or thin, too wimpy or too aggressive, too dumb or too smart. We can refuse to follow the voice, but it is almost impossible to shut out.


The voice is there not just because socialization agents instilled it in us at an early age, but because the message goes on day after day, year after year. We police each other and ourselves. We see and hear the messages at every turn. The voice is not solely the voice of childhood, but the voice of our current selves. However, it is not only through values and images and social constructions that our gender complex is shaped, but through structured interactions, expectations, and rules in social institutions and organizations.


Institutionalization of the Sex-Based System

The sex-based system of stratification in the U.S. is not new and did not start with the creation of the United States as a nation. Most people came here from somewhere else, and they brought their cultures with them. As discussed in Chapter One, everyone’s culture did not (and does not) have equal power within the U.S. context. Certainly, the concept of women as property was not invented in the United States, but it was brought here by early British colonists and the laws they lived under. Actually under those laws (and contemporary law as well) children are a form of property. The sex difference historically was that males (white) outgrew their property status, but (white) women did not. Females were first the property of their fathers and then the property of their husbands. Any rights they had derived from the rights of father/husband as independently they were not recognized under the law. Actually this issue of attached rights applied to all women in the United States regardless of race, and social class differences also played a role in these rights. If a father/husband was not eligible for citizenship then neither were the women attached to him.


Laws regarding citizenship for women were deeply entwined with race (which will be discussed later), but significantly restricted a woman’s citizenship rights until 1952. Generally, until 1952, a white woman could have citizenship only by marrying a citizen. If she married a non-citizen, or person ineligible for citizenship, then she lost her U.S. citizenship. The 1952 law change also allowed foreign women (and non-white foreign women) to gain citizenship by marrying a citizen. This law however did not extend to foreign males gaining citizenship by marrying a woman citizen.


Initially, and carrying over to current social structure, neither all men nor all women were created equal. The mythology is that women’s primary roles have always been within the home and with children. To extend this further, men worked in the world and women worked in the home. This is related to discussions of spheres of influence where women’s primary domain is in the domestic sphere and men’s in the public sphere. In other words, women’s lives were and are bounded by home and family while men are “in the world.”


While we may structure our expectations and what is considered appropriate around the domestic/public spheres, the reality of women’s lives varies from the myth significantly. Having women remain within the domestic sphere requires enough material surplus (money) to accommodate an additional dependent within the family. The myth also presumes a protectiveness by the society towards women, when in reality that protectiveness has not, and is not, extended to all women. The differences in women’s lives, in particular, interacts strongly with both social class and race.


As alluded to above, having women stay within the home requires sufficient social class standing that the family can survive. Poor women, regardless of social class, have always worked for pay in money-based economies and the United States is no exception. Historically, poor and working class women worked in women’s factories (sweat shops), cottage industries (piece work within their homes, in the fields and mining camps, and as domestic servants – to name a few. The myth of the woman at home is that she is largely engaged in maintenance rather than productive labor. However, even women’s work at home (while unpaid) is frequently necessary to the survival of most families. Whether engaged in gardening and livestock care or making clothes and household products or the care of children and those unable to work, the work and production of women is significant even if it doesn’t “count.” Even today in the U.S., women’s unpaid labor is worth billions of dollars and facilitates men’s broader participation in the paid labor market.


Race also made significant differences in women’s lives and rights. As Bonnie Thorton Dill (1988) notes, European women’s role in reproduction and the raising of children was nourished through a variety of practices and laws. However, the situation for women of color and racialized ethnics was significantly different and without the protections and nurturance experienced by white women. For women of color, particularly Black slaves, and Mexicans, the expectation was production of children as additional workers, and to be productive workers outside the homes. Little consideration, and frequently deliberate barriers, were provided for families of color. For slaves, marriage was banned in most places and families were often broken by sale of family members. For American Indians, children were deliberately removed from families and sent away to “boarding schools,” and early Chinese laborers were unable to bring their families or establish them here. People of color – women, men, and children – were primarily seen as a cheap and exploitable labor force (Dill, 1988:418).


While many think that the issues of structured and social gender inequality are located in the distant past, it is not. Women were not protected from sex discrimination in getting consumer credit until 1974 with the passage of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and those protections were not extended to commercial credit (i.e. business loans) until 1988. Prior to that time it was very difficult for women to get credit in their own names, and upon marriage the woman’s credit automatically transferred to her husband. Sexual harassment was not added to the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) until 1980, and it was 1986 before the Supreme Court declared sexual harassment as a form of illegal job discrimination. It wasn’t until 1981 in Kirchberg v. Feenstra that the Supreme Court overturned state laws that declared husbands as having total control over property held jointly with wives. And it wasn’t until the mid 1970s that the last of the state laws allowing a husband to physically chastise (discipline) his wife were removed from the books (National Women’s History Project).


Even though laws and legislation regarding discrimination against women in housing, employment, education, and credit have been passed, discrimination still occurs. There is still disparity between the sexes in wages, poverty levels, credit worthiness, and political representation, to name a few areas. Discrimination and sexual harassment are common experiences for women, and violence against women has not seemed to decrease. Women are still seen as primarily responsible for home and children, and occupational segregation has not markedly decreased. The portrayal of gender roles in the media has expanded somewhat, but with a clear link to their sexual status and position as women.


We could argue that there has not been sufficient time for substantial changes in the sex-based stratification system, and to some extent this would be a justifiable argument. What concerns me as a teacher however, is the perception that inequality between the sexes no longer exists. It is a new myth of equality that is not supportable by women’s lives nor statistics. Nor is it supportable by men’s lives and statistics. Men’s roles are not changing substantively; they still die considerably earlier than women even though they have been the focus of most medical research; they still are not generally seen as appropriate sole caretakers of their children in custody cases; they are still seen as not “real” men if they cross over to female occupations. Some of what we are witnessing are true changes, but much of what we are seeing are shifts in the ways that sexual stratification is manifesting itself.


Maintenance of the Sex Stratification System

Let’s utilize the model we introduced in the last chapter to illuminate the processes of sex stratification. Actually, I want you to utilize the model to examine two different, though related systems. First, examine sex stratification within the framework of the model, then examine it within sexual orientation. I will start the model for you, and you should complete it yourself.

 



Maintaining the Sex Status System


 

Males

Females

Rewards (those things individuals and groups receive (or are promised) by staying within the rules and behaviors of the system)

respect, power, freedom of movement . . .

protection, support, acceptance, . . .

Punishments (punishments individuals receive for breaking the rules)

exclusion, verbal harassment, . . .

labeled as “dykes, considered unattractive, . . .

Costs (what negative consequences are there for individuals and the stratum of the system being as it is; or what do people “give up” because of the system?)

restricted emotional and personal expression, . . .

discrimination in employment, . . .



Homophobia and Heterosexism

It is interesting as we look at the dynamics of the sex - gender system and the sexual orientation system that two interacting process come to light – homophobia and compulsory heterosexuality. Homophobia is the fear and hatred of homosexuality and homosexuals. Homophobia was a term coined by a psychologist by the name of George Weinberg in the late 1960s, and then discussed at length in his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual (Weinberg, 1972). Heterosexism is directly linked to homophobia – we might call it the opposite side of the same coin. Heterosexism is the institutional and ideological domination of heterosexuality as a fundamental part of the structure of patriarchy. It is a belief system like racism, sexism, or classism. Some authors use the term heterosexism to describe a belief system which is fundamentally anti-gay such as Herek (1990). Herek (2000) has continued to pursue this line of inquiry, and has broadened her research into sexual prejudice. Sexual prejudice refers to all negative beliefs based on sexual orientation. Like other forms of prejudice, sexual prejudice is a belief or judgement based upon perceived membership in a social group.


Homophobia, like other forms of prejudice, is also societal in nature – not just a product of individuals. We live in a generally homophobic society where dislike and even hatred of homosexuals is considered acceptable, and even normal. Further, this prejudice is reinforced through a wide array of social practices and institutions. This reinforcement can be seen in the legal denial of allowing same-sex couples to marry, laws against sodomy that are almost explicitly aimed at homosexuals, and lack of job or housing protection in areas of the country. It is also highly reflected in the June 29, 2000 ruling of the United States Supreme Court who decided that the Boy Scouts of America have the right to expel from leadership or participation in Scouts any member who is homosexual. This ruling is interesting because they ruled the Scouts are a private organization aimed at teaching values. However, they have not expelled scout members who are not homosexual, but are not condemning of homosexuality.


Compulsory heterosexuality is the systematic and systemic bias towards heterosexuality and a heterosexual lifestyle as reflected in social institutions such as the family, religion, and the state (Rich, 1980). Compulsory heterosexuality is also reflected in the pervasive nature of its presentation in the society through stories, myths, values, and all forms of media. Compulsory heterosexuality is the presentation of heterosexuality as the only acceptable choice. This is one of the reasons that many prefer the term sexual orientation – there is not a choice that is involved in the atmosphere of compulsory heterosexuality.


The birth of the concepts of homophobia, heterosexism, and compulsory heterosexuality came largely out of the feminist movement of the 1960s and 70s, and especially out of radical feminist and lesbian feminist theory (Daly, 1978; Rich, 1980; Ettore, 1985; etc). However, the discussion and elaboration of these concepts has gone far beyond the feminist movement to be integrated into the studies of philosophy, psychology, sociology, anthropology, literature, ethics and medical ethics, social work, etc. It is also regularly included in classes in Women’s and Gay Studies programs. Compulsory heterosexuality is certainly part of the paradigm of sexual orientation, but it is also considered by some a key component in maintaining male dominance and patriarchy. According to J. Keith Vincent (1997), we are in an “age characterized by an unprecedented convergence of gender identity with sexual behavior” that is characterized by the present manifestation of compulsory heterosexuality.





Maintenance of the Sexual Orientation System

As you will have noticed from completing the Maintaining the Sex Status System grid above, sexual orientation and the processes around it are important within the maintenance of the sex and gender system. We might look at it as a process within a process. For that reason, please do the same exercise for maintaining the status system for sexual orientation.


 

Heterosexuals

Bisexuals and Gays

Rewards (those things individuals and groups receive (or are promised) by staying within the rules and behaviors of the system)

 

 

Punishments (punishments individuals receive for breaking the rules)

 

 

Costs (what negative consequences are there for individuals and the stratum of the system being as it is; or what do people “give up” because of the system?)

 

 



Putting it Together

As is obvious to you from this chapter, sex, sex identity, gender, gender identity, gender roles, and sexual orientation all interact significantly with each other. In fact, while we can discuss them independently of each other they also give meaning to each other. The ways that these various components of the sex/gender system change from context to context, and variable to variable is complex. It is an arena that is at one intimately personal and incredibly public. Take a few moments and think about their interaction in your life. Take one day as a sample and see the dance of these constructs in your life. You will note that they change from situation to situation and interaction to interaction. How does your awareness of the constructs affect your response to the world around you, the advertisement you just saw, or the movie you just watched?


Looking Forward

You should now have a feel for how the sex stratification system works. We will examine throughout the rest of this section how other highly significant stratification systems - social class and race. We started with the sex-based system because it is to most people the one they have the most information about. While it is easy to see how personal the effects of sex are, for many social class and race seem much more obscure and distant. As you will find in the discussions that follow, their impacts are as personal and as broad as sex and gender. The skills you gained in using the model of status maintenance will be employed as we examine social class and race. Then as we move through the other areas of the text, you will be able to add to that model and your understanding of how these very different, but very integrated systems work together shaping our lives and our society.


Suggested Reading and Resources

Intersex Society of North America http://www.isna.org/


Intersex Voices http://www.qis.net/~triea/inter.html


National Women’s History Project http://www.nwhp.org/links.html


Women’s Legacy 1998 http://www.legacy98.org/


Key Concepts and Terms

berdache

bisexual

compulsory heterosexuality

domestic sphere

gender identity

gender role


gender

hermaphrodite

heterosexism

heterosexual

homophobia

homosexual



intersexual

public sphere

sex

sexual orientation

two spirit