How Much Weight Should Biology Hold in a Conversation About Gender?

We are taught that there is a pretty clear distinction between "girl" and "boy"; either a person has a vagina and can give birth, or they have a penis and produce more testosterone. Like many things taught at a young age, the reality is far more nuanced and complicated, and can't really be summed up in such a simple statement.

Human beings are incredibly complex, and the intricacy of our biological bodies create room for enormous diversity in their structure and function. So when we acknowledge that "sex" is a combination of sexual organs, reproductive systems, chromosomes and hormones, we can understand how there is in fact a large spectrum of sexes; so many different physical and chemical combinations of "sex" can and do exist. It is extremely common for people with vulvas, female reproductive systems and breasts to have “male” levels of testosterone. Nor is it particularly “strange” for someone to be born with neither the XX nor XY chromosome patterns. Many babies each year are born with both, neither, or a mix of both the “male” and “female” genitalia. Basically, intersex people are very common, and despite the social stigmas, they are alive, healthy and fully functioning. Check out more statistics at www.isna.org/faq/frequency.

When we accept that the biological science of sex isn't particularly straightforward, we start to struggle more with this idea of gender. "Gender" is apparently inherent traits of a particular sex, but if so many people exist outside a black and white male/female sexual reality, and so many people identify as transgender or non binary, how can this hold true? It is difficult to justify how oestrogen makes women more apt to an arts degree rather than STEM subjects, or how a Y chromosome makes boys prefer blue to pink in the face of the very real diversity that exists with every unique person. The conclusion that many feminists have come to is that "gender" is a socially constructed concept, and is far less natural than we like to think it is.

When we start looking at typical feminist issues such as women's role in the workforce, it is easy to see how the "female gender" actually disadvantages people who identify as women. Although women may be excellent politicians, the idea that the all females have a strong and inherent maternal instinct has held us back from positions of power throughout history, as it has been believed that we will not be able to make the difficult decisions. Although women may be fantastic scientists, the idea that we are more inclined to creativity rather than logic has, and continues to, block STEM opportunities for women. What we continually see is that women are discredited from entire fields of work because of assumptions based on the "biological essence of the female gender", despite the huge diversity that exists in 50% of the world's population, and despite varying levels of oestrogen having a fairly minimal impact on rational decisions made by a trained and educated employee. This issue detrimentally affects men, as well. Men who wish to take on more traditionally "feminine" roles such as early education and child care are discouraged from doing so, as "women's" work is beneath the entitled capacity of men. Again, this is in spite of men's very real ability to be excellent fathers, child carers and preschool teachers even though they may contain higher levels of testosterone, and not have a functional womb.

However, as much as a the feminist dream is a world without gender where people can express themselves and make choices purely based on what they like rather than pre-ordained roles, this world can likely never be achieved due to the entrenched ideas of gender that are built into the metaphorical fabric of society. Moreover, most radical feminists are willing to accept that biology isn't 100% irrelevant, the difference between my body and my brother's body does contribute to some of our differences. Testosterone does make muscle easier to build, and oestrogen does more easily trigger protective and possessive emotions.

The issue then lies with society's priorities of biological capacity.

We have come to believe in so many ways that men are "better" than women purely because of biology. We have come to believe that the "maternal instinct" is an undesirable trait, that means women are bad at corporate jobs, and will always be annoying, over-attached girlfriends. We have come to believe that dunking the ball in basketball is a sign of superior athletic ability, and so men are better than women at basketball due to their natural testosterone and height.

This is arbitrary.

If you grew up in a world where the most valued thing was the ability to relate to young children, and running a business was not a desirable job choice, you would likely view the female gender as "better" than the male, and pride the role of mother above the role of corporate leader. If you grew up in a world where the whole point of basketball was defence, and keeping it on the court, then you wouldn't value men's ability to jump and dunk the ball.

When we properly step through the links between sex, gender, and personality traits, we see that if often doesn't line up into the neat gender binary we perceive there to be, and we must accept that "male" and "female" are not natural states of being for so many people. However that doesn't mean biology has zero impact. Maybe men are stronger and faster because of a chemical composition that some people with penises also possess. But this does not make them inherently "better"; men are only "better" than women because of the relative values created by society, which arbitrarily favour men due to several thousand years of patriarchal society. Maybe people with certain combinations of organs and hormones are different from another group, but we must accept that the idea of valuing certain trains associated with these differences over others not nature, but generations of accepted expectations and norms that have become ingrained in our society.

Comment below!

Love, Hannah

Breaking (Down) The Glass Ceiling

I find that this ultimate feminist buzzword tends to provoke images of beautiful crystal domes… But alas, it actually represents the status quo of institutionalised oppression, usually in the corporate sphere. “The glass ceiling” is a phrase often thrown about as proof of workplace discrimination, but unfortunately the full significance of its meaning is often lost upon those who need to understand it most (read: wealthy white men in positions of power). So let’s smash this glass ceiling. And by smash I mean carefully deconstruct and explain through specific substructure.

What even is this ominous glass ceiling?

The glass ceiling refers to the discrimination women face in the modern workforce, where they are told on surface level that sexism is gone and women can achieve any level of success that they wish. However the simultaneous reality is that women clearly do not achieve success at an equal rate to men, due to the fact that sexism is indeed alive and kicking in the workforce. We’ve all heard the standard statistic “women make 77c for every man’s (US) dollar”. Those who oppose the recognition of workplace discrimination undermine this statistic by arguing that it has never been proven, and there are a multitude of studies that provide conflicting results. This is absolutely correct. The 77c for a man’s dollar does not accurately represent the reality of women’s earning in modern society. It is in fact only white women who earn 77c to every white man’s dollar. Black women earn 69c for every white man’s dollar, and Latina women only earn 57c. This doesn’t even begin to delve into the discrimination faced by trans women, indigenous women, queer women etc. So what we see is that it is indeed difficult to find a definitive statistic for corporate oppression, because most studies do not take the intersections between sex, race, sexuality and gender identity into account. However, despite what anti-feminists insinuate, this doesn’t disprove the existence of sexism… And by the way, these numbers are from government sites which control for career choice. Bam. Sexism exists.

University of Oregon Study

Now let’s actually talk about the interesting stuff.

What causes the invisible barrier that prevents women from entering the top echelons of their 

careers?

Again we visit our old friend gender roles, and the resulting socialisation that prevents women from achieving the same levels of corporate success as men. Women are conditioned to embody “feminine” traits, such as submissiveness and passivity, a nurturing personality and “motherly” tendencies. However, society is simultaneously conditioned to look down upon such traits, and view them as less worthy of respect than typically “masculine” skills, like logical thinking and muscular strength. Click here to read how this gender divide has nothing to do with biology. Essentially, we have a workforce which prioritises masculinity over femininity, and hence men over women. Of course, recently there has been a push to place legislative checks and balances to prevent discrimination against women. In Australia, it is illegal to deny a women a position and/or promotion due to her sex. Unfortunately this does not effectively abolish workplace discrimination, because the glass ceiling is built on a much more subtle premise than can be solved by blanket legislation.

The majority of people in society are not actively bigoted misogynists, but average people who are susceptible to social conditioning. The catch is that said conditioning is inherently sexist. Joy. So when the polite, educated, male employer is deciding if he should hire Jack or Jill, he is most likely not leaning towards Jack because he actively thinks Jill is a weak, incapable woman. Rather he is subconsciously aware that there is a devaluation of women’s labour, and so reasons that Jack is probably a better asset to the company than Jill. It is hence difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jill was discriminated against, yet we can easily see that sexism continues to be a relevant factor in women’s career paths.

And it’s not just sexist employers – typically female dominated careers are devalued simply because society doesn’t respect female labour. Undermining the glass ceiling theory by stating that women “choose lower paying jobs than men” just further proves its existence. Through social conditioning and gender roles, women on the whole are pigeon-holed into certain careers which require “feminine skills”, and hence paid less due to – again – the devaluation of female labour. Teaching was literally a highly respected, well paid profession until it became female dominated in the Industrial Revolution.

This is the true nature of the glass ceiling; it is not blatant, conscious misogyny, but the inevitability of women facing subtle barriers built by the pervasive influence of gender roles. Despite women being able to “see” their goals and supposedly given the means to achieve them, a multitude of unrecognisable factors results in far fewer women actually gaining success than man.

TL;DR:

·       -   Statistics on workplace discrimination are unreliable, but this unreliability actually further proves gender wage gaps.

·       -  Socialisation of gender roles causes

o   Inherently sexist employers

o   A devaluation of female labour

·        -  Breaking down gender roles is more effective than anti-workplace discrimination legislation in preventing prejudice.

·        - The glass ceiling is a legitimate and complex concept, not a meaningless, overused buzzword.

Smashing J

Hannah 

Wow another page!

Fun, educational, and full of fire-breathing dragons and wizards!

http://afeministfatale.blogspot.com.au/p/gender-roles-101.html

Hannah

Masculinity is Fragile

Do men suffer under the patriarchy? Is society suppressive to men’s everyday lives too? Can men stand to benefit from feminism?

Yes, yes, and yes again. Society holds men to toxic and unreachable standards, which simultaneously oppress women and viciously attack your everyday guy. The idea that men are inherently “masculine” is one of the most avidly protected social views, despite its incredible flaws and negative outcomes. Breaking it down:

What is masculinity?
Masculinity is the socially constructed gender role that all people assigned as male are expected to fit into. To clear some things up: being born with a penis does not mean you are male or masculine. Gender identity exists independent of biology, as it is an emotional and mental identity. Similarly, the way you express your identity in terms of “masculinity” or “femininity” is not determined by your genitals or chromosomes, it is determined by how you feel comfortable in your actions, ideas, and interests. So we see that masculinity is just a set of traits and mannerisms arbitrarily labelled as pertaining to men. Preferring blue over pink, or rugby over ballet is not something inherently scientific. Paying for the first date or being disinclined to show emotion is not something that is specifically for men. It is a criteria set up by society in order to keep people in boxes. Yeah, sounds kinda drastic. It is.

How is it established?
If you are mainly given Lego, toy cars and action figures as a child, and you see that the same goes for other boys, you will learn that these kinds of things are only for boys, hence inherently masculine. It is pushed even further when little boys are discouraged from playing with Barbie dolls or pink plush toys. Again, there is nothing biological that makes girls like “girl” toys and boy like “boy” toys other than that is the only thing we perceive to be normal. Even if the borders are allowed to relax slightly, like a parent giving a boy a Bratz doll, the overwhelming influences from advertising, preschool playground norms and kids TV shows overcome this. Toys are a good example, but this kind of social conditioning continues into almost every aspect of society. All-girls schools are more likely to offer food tech and textiles while all-boys schools are more likely to offer engineering and woodwork, creating an idea that the latter subjects (…and subsequent career paths) are more appropriate for men; that they are inherently masculine.

Why is it harmful to men?
I’ve already touched on how women suffer the brunt end of these gender roles in previous articles, and will continue to do so, but men cop it too. Men are told from a young age not to show emotion, because it is “not manly enough”. Boys are told that they are “squealing like a girl”, “crying like a girl”, and “acting like a girl” when they express natural human emotions. Meanwhile, society is sympathetic towards women showing the same emotions. This occurs because emotionalness has been conditioned as incompatible with masculinity; it is too feminine, too weak, too “pussy” to be associated with men and manly standards of strength. So we see a society where men feel shamed and attacked to show emotion, which ends up in a really unhealthy lifestyle of emotional suppression. It also means that when men do break from their standards, and express an affinity for something “feminine”, they are punished by society. They are labelled as gay, she-male, pussy, and a plethora of other insults. It is worth noting that the reason these words are insults is because they are associated with femininity, which is threatening and insulting to the patriarchal standards of masculinity.

So then what do you mean by “masculinity is fragile”?
“Masculinity is fragile” is actually a common phrase often found on social media under a hashtag of the same name. It is a phrase that points out the flaws in our social standards of how men should act, because so much of our lives revolve around men preventing their masculinity from being attacked. Even though adhering to expectations of masculinity limits and inhibits many men’s lives, society continues to strongly protect the standard. This can be seen in advertising, as products traditionally seen as feminine attempt to appeal to men by being hyper-masculine. For example, whilst the Nivea women’s moisturisers are advertised as luxury feminine items, the male moisturisers are in silver and grey boxes, labelled clearly FOR MEN and include taglines like “shower, shave, moisturise, go”. The difference in advertising for what is literally the same product shows how fragile masculinity is, because men would feel embarrassed and effeminate to be seen buying and using a luxury cream packaged in a pale blue tube with flowers. There is nothing biological about men liking silver and grey packaging, and women liking flowers. It’s socially constructed.

Similarly, the need for “bro-mances” “bro-ga” (yoga for men) “man-purses” are examples of masculinity’s fragility, as male society feels awkward being associated with anything feminine, yet wishing to enjoy the products/activities. The need to masculine-ise anything remotely feminine reveals just how often men feel the need to “man up” in order to fit into society, regardless of their personal preferences. Feminism aims to take down the existence of these gender roles in the first place, hence liberating men to express whatever they feel most comfortable in, without society's constant death stare at anything remotely feminine.

Basically, masculinity is the bane of our lives. So don’t worry about “manning up”, just be strong and vulnerable in a way that suits you. You don’t need to say “no homo” every time you hug your friend, because hugging is a normal expression of friendship, and anyway, being gay should not be a taboo. You don’t need to “grow a pair” when you cry, because crying is inherently human, and testicles are not inherently masculine.

Also: https://twitter.com/hashtag/masculinityisfragile <-- its hilarious.

Hannah