{"id":6255,"date":"2015-10-29T07:47:08","date_gmt":"2015-10-29T14:47:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dminlgp\/?p=6255"},"modified":"2015-10-29T07:47:08","modified_gmt":"2015-10-29T14:47:08","slug":"feminism-and-gender-expectation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/feminism-and-gender-expectation\/","title":{"rendered":"Feminism and Gender Expectation"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"picasso\"<\/a>Elliott seeks to uncover the social theory that is tied into sexuality, dominance and capitalism through the discussion of Marxism, Feminism, Structuralism and various other theories. He suggests that semiology plays a valid part in understanding these constructs and provides us with the ability to delve past the fa\u00e7ade and seek to understand humanity and society utilizing all of our senses. Elliott asks us to consider various points, and at times, the book seems to take us on endless bunny trails that lead to dead ends. This week\u2019s assignment, was very much like looking through various pictures of Salvador Dali and Picasso and trying to come up with rational interpretation – the experience was exhausting and confusing at times. \u00a0For this week\u2019s post, I\u2019ve decided to focus on Elliott\u2019s presentation of Feminism and learned behavior that influences gender expectation.<\/p>\n

What is gender? Can it be separated into binary definitions of characteristics, interests and behaviors? Or is it something deeper than scientific assumption? Freud believed that sexuality and domination worked in tandem against emotional and sexual repression. He sought to convey the interworking of humanity\u2019s need for power, sex and position against the backdrop of capitalism. \u201cModern society, says Freud, is repressive. Society imposes severe restrictions upon individuals, some of which can produce intense emotional suffering and misery\u201d[1]<\/a> You would think that Freud would sympathize with the inequality of women, but in many ways, his theories kept women in continual bondage. Women were the \u201cothers\u201d of humanity. In many ways, men were given the position of envy and highlighted as the utopian form of behavior and prestige. \u201cFreud\u2019s account of the central \u2018marks of womanhood\u2019 \u2013 masochism, envy, jealously, a weak superego \u2013 are understood as a consequence of women\u2019s subjection to patriarchal law, and not as innate psychological attributes.\u201d[2]<\/a> We see in this statement, that womanhood was viewed as in comparison to manhood, instead of functioning as its own entity. This type of mindset entraps women with the belief that they must be married or with children in order to have identity \u2013 they must have a comparative standard of measurement.<\/p>\n

Nancy Chodorow, author and Feminist theorist argues just that. However, she believes that there is an instilled desire to mother in order to replicate the sameness of females within the nuclear family. Children are simply an answer to the loneliness that women experience during marriage from the gender difference of being married to a man. She suggests that there is disengagement from men within the marriage and that women seek to raise children to fill an emotional need; especially children who are of the same gender.<\/p>\n

The problem with this theory, is that it still stems from a reaction to patriarchal authority. The woman is still seen as subjugated to the role of motherhood. It lacks choice from the women, because it is reactionary to a man\u2019s supposed distance. This type of belief perpetuates the concept that marriage and children are necessary to give women identity and eradicates the idea that female desires are individualized. Elliott reveals the loopholes in Chodorow\u2019s argument by posing the questions, \u201cWhat of mothers who encourage \u2018feminine\u2019 modes of expression in their sons? What of mothers who foster \u2018masculine\u2019 aims of autonomy, independence, and achievement in their daughters?\u201d[3]<\/a> Chodorow perpetuates the idea that gender is universal and children are somehow malleable to strictly defined characteristics based on sex. However, every argument must leave room for individual differences and cultural interpretations.<\/p>\n

Judith Butler, a Feminist theorist stated, \u201cIdentity is not immediately present in a sign: it is by learning to use language situationally \u2013 which is itself a matter of linguistic differences and cultural conventions \u2013 that subjects project themselves into gender roles as women or men.\u201d[4]<\/a> In Butler\u2019s opinion, gender is a learned aspect that occurs through personal projection of linguistic and semiotic definition of gender roles. She goes on to suggest, \u201cAnother way of putting this point is to say that gender performances are always copies, imitations fashioned out of fantasies or idealization of dominant cultural representations of femininity and masculinity.\u201d[5]<\/a> Gender identity, according to Butler is fashioned through popular culture; however, she failed to present the diverse reality of cultural representation. What about the young boy who loves to dance, who lives in Russia? Would he be labeled as feminine, because he enjoys ballet? No, because his interests would be considered culturally masculine and acceptable within that part of the world. \u00a0In the same way, what about a young girl in America who enjoys studying chemical engineering? Is she considered masculine, because her interests don\u2019t fit within the norm of femininity? No, because her cultural expectation is much more open to various forms of interests, which is not limited by gender. Are they both male and female? Yes. Are they both influenced by cultural norms? Yes.<\/p>\n

Earlier in the book, globalization was discussed in regards to societal structures. I believe that the same applies to the structure of gender roles. Elliott states, \u201cA number of conceptual approaches in this respect, from post-structuralism and postmodernism to globalization studies, suggests that the social sciences must radically rethink their subject matter \u2013 as a world of \u2018bounded\u2019 societies no longer exist, if they indeed ever once did.\u201d[6]<\/a> We need to rethink gender structuralism and consider the fact that the binary roles of masculinity and femininity really no longer exist, if they indeed ever once did. Sexual differences are factual aspects of biology, but strict forms of gender roles are contingent on cultural and global perspective. Anthony Elliot asserts that there is an inherited difference between males and females and suggests that masculinity and femininity are learned behaviors \u2013 filled with expectation and insecurities specific to their sex. Elliott presented his argument and stated, \u201cHuman beings are born male and female, but become men and women through a process of social construction.\u201d[7]<\/a> The question I pose to you is this \u2013 what type of men and women are you creating through your social construction? Are they made in the Image of Christ or fashioned by the image of culture? Galatians 3:26-28 says it best, \u201cSo in Christ Jesus you are all children of God\u00a0through faith,\u00a0for all of you who were baptized into Christ\u00a0have clothed yourselves with Christ.\u00a0There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free,\u00a0nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.\u201d We must delve into the debate and see people as more than \u2018skirts\u2019 and \u2018pants\u2019 \u2013 we must see the diversity of gender displayed through men and women determined to be used by the heart of God. This type of lifestyle is not tied down by gender expectation. It\u2019s freed by God-ordained calling.<\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Anthony Elliott,\u00a0Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction<\/em>, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 34.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Anthony Elliott,\u00a0Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction<\/em>, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 213.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Anthony Elliott,\u00a0Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction<\/em>, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 221.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Anthony Elliott,\u00a0Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction<\/em>, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 238.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Anthony Elliott,\u00a0Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction<\/em>, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 239.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Anthony Elliott,\u00a0Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction<\/em>, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 5.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Anthony Elliott,\u00a0Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction<\/em>, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 209.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Elliott seeks to uncover the social theory that is tied into sexuality, dominance and capitalism through the discussion of Marxism, Feminism, Structuralism and various other theories. He suggests that semiology plays a valid part in understanding these constructs and provides us with the ability to delve past the fa\u00e7ade and seek to understand humanity and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":66,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[238],"class_list":["post-6255","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-elliott","cohort-lgp6"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6255","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/66"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6255"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6255\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6258,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6255\/revisions\/6258"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6255"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6255"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.georgefox.edu\/dlgp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6255"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}