A Gendered World: Shaping the Ideas of Sex and Gender

While some believe there is no substantial distinction between sex and gender, others argue that the definitions of these concepts act as the very stem of female oppression. Aaron H. Devor is a writer that exhibits the latter and forms an argument to admonish society of the detriment they have caused. Other writers like Naomi Wolf and Jean Kilbourne offer support to this argument through their own discussions of the beauty myth, advertising, and violence. All of the topics discussed are well argued and intertwine to display the origin of gender roles and how they negatively affect society.

The separation of sex and gender is an elaborate topic but can be simplified by considering sex to be strictly anatomical, and gender a categorical concept established by society. Through individuals, the idea of gender works against feminism, and thus society, even before we are born. While offspring develop in the womb, mothers and fathers feed to the negativity of gender as they purchase blue outfits for males and pink dresses for females. After birth and as we age, this negativity is amplified and repeats its vicious cycle. Many more examples are introduced in Devor's "Becoming Members of Society: Learning the Social Meanings of Gender." As he states "[Children] often make [their] ascriptions based on role information, such as hairstyle, rather than physical attributes," it can be seen that at a very young age, children base their decision on appearance rather than anatomy, inflicting misjudgment on anyone that differs from the corresponding qualities of the parent category. To expand on this statement, he adds "One result of this level of understanding of gender is that children in this age group often believe that people may change their gender with a change in clothing, hairstyle, or activity." Of course, this ideology would attract negative criticism to anyone who chose to transform their gender. For example, a female who decides to cut her hair short may possibly be ridiculed for displaying the qualities associated with masculinity. This mentality, as a product of our culture, has contributed to the formula that yields a backlash on society.

Another piece of the formula is formed with the allocation of gender specific traits to the socially defined categories of masculinity and femininity. Devor defines these traits as "mirror images of one another with masculinity usually characterized by dominance and aggression, and femininity by passivity and submission." With these attributes in mind, clearly this can cause a problem for anyone displaying the traits assigned to their opposite gender. For instance, if a man cries or demonstrates any sort of submission, he is often severely ridiculed, even among females, for such behavior. Devor also notes that "[Some people] recognize our sex or gender more on the basis of these characteristics [rather] than on the basis of sex characteristics...]" Again, this creates a setback for society as being a leader automatically confirms manhood and being a nurturer confirms womanhood. This problem could easily be alleviated if these characteristics were not assigned and gender was determined by anatomy alone with individuals choosing their own qualities.

Instead, these culturally conditioned ideas of gender and the designation of qualities work together to impair society. They create the previously mentioned backlash that takes its form as the gender role. By conditioning children at a young age to associate colors and clothing to a gender only forces them to believe that all gender is determined by appearance. This, in turn, allows for the assigning of specific qualities to a gender. For instance, if a person wears a dress, they are automatically considered submissive and thus systematically labeled a female. This ideology ties society down and forces them to fit into these two categories: aggressive masculinity and passive femininity. Obviously this would cause problems for anyone wanting to display the opposite qualities of their gender.

Not only does this damage society by insisting that a person must fulfill their gender role, but other forces pressure them to maintain that role. For example, Naomi Wolf defines the beauty myth as "a violent backlash against feminism that uses images of female beauty as a political weapon against women's advancement." Under this idea of beauty, society can ensure that women will maintain their role as society has assigned it. According to Wolf, "competition between women has been made part of the myth so that women will be divided from one another." This clearly confirms that the beauty ideology creates an internal conflict among women, which preoccupies their ambition and sustains their submissive role. Furthermore, Wolf claims that "women's identity must be premised upon our 'beauty' so that we will remain vulnerable to outside approval." Again this maintains gender roles as males act as the source of outside approval and women below them beg for it. Additionally, Wolf mentions the "caricature of the Ugly Feminist," which acts as another method of maintaining the oppression of women and forcing them into their gender roles. For example, the word "feminist" has now acquired a negative connotation. The general image of a feminist is one that is repulsive and manly. Since society has encouraged beauty among women, this depiction of a feminist is often repelled. Of course, this is a stereotype and generalization, but is successful at preventing a female-led rebellion.

Another way women are forced to maintain their gender roles is approached by Jean Kilbourne in "Two Ways a Woman Can Get Hurt." This work elaborates on the beauty myth and gives examples of how women are objectified and forced to endure images of unobtainable beauty. Kilbourne begins by declaring that "Sex in advertising is pornographic because it dehumanizes and objectifies... especially women." Obviously, this dehumanization of women and many men, leads one to believe that men are human and women are inhuman (as a result of objectification). This falls into the assumption that women are beneath men. Furthermore, the sole purpose for exploiting an object is merely for one's own benefit. In this case, men are the beneficiaries.

In relation to the beauty myth, men benefit from the objectification of women because it causes internal conflict. For example, Kilbourne notes that "it is hard for girls not to learn self-hatred in an environment in which there is such widespread and open contempt for women..." This supports the ideas of the beauty myth in that women that are objectified are considered beautiful, and have man's approval. This compels women whom are not in ads to feel inadequate, and therefore must strive for adequacy, creating issues of self-esteem and involving unhealthy habits. This is severely damaging to society, especially women, because the beauty portrayed in these advertisements is unobtainable. Not only does it hurt women physically and mentally, but it also contributes to the preoccupation discussed earlier.

To tie everything together and account for the creation and maintenance of gender roles, one must consider all three topics to be directly related. First, Devor concluded that society imposes gender roles on children at a young age through the use of characteristics of appearance and gender specific traits. Next, society uses beauty and advertisements to maintain those gender roles by hindering the advancement of women through means of internal destruction. This secures men and women into their gender roles with the representation of men as aggressive leaders and women as passive followers. If this cycle is not broken and the public continues to maintain these gender roles, society will remain forever flawed.