Women’s studies deals with the issues of gender roles and identity, as well as the historical presence and actions of both men and women, in such a way that the sameness/difference debate cannot be ignored. The basis of the sameness/difference debate is the question of whether differences based on gender are constructed by society or are actual inherent differences. Are men and women simply “one sex and…women’s internal genitalia [are] the inverse of men’s external genitalia”(Lorber: 33)? Are the sociological gender differences, and therefore gender roles, merely created by us to make it easier to distinguish between different types of people? Or are there unchangeable, significant behavioral differences, with a biological basis, between members of ‘both’ genders? These questions and many others only begin to describe the sameness/difference debate. It seems logical, even ideal, in conventional Western society today to have the norms of “male” and “female”, a two-gender system. It makes life concise, ordered – there are certain ways to act if you are a man, certain ways to act if you are a woman. The “perfect family” consists of one male parent, one female, and usually a daughter, a son, and even a dog and a cat. Why is there no questioning of this common acceptance of the gender dichotomy? In the past, “researchers have either ignored or not thought to ask” this question – and relying on “only two sex and gender categories [in the biological and social sciences]” (Lorber: pg 39) is the normal way of society. It makes sense to us, possibly because that is what many of us have known throughout our entire lives, that a family grouping in society functions best with elements of both genders.
There is rarely a thought given to the concept that males and females are inherently the same as humans, and that gender roles that are applied based merely on genitalia at birth. Given that the “male” or “female” characteristics are present in an overwhelming majority of humans, it seems obvious why our society chooses the two sexes as the underlying basis of gender orientation. The debatable part is the way in which our society goes overboard in defining the gender roles right off the bat –the question “is it a boy or a girl?” in the delivery room, and how from infancy babies are clothed in either pink or blue depending on their gender. From these traditions, the question of nature versus nurture is brought up, which figures greatly in the sameness/difference debate. Is one socialized to become a “man” or a “woman” or is he/she simply born with those characteristics? Would we so readily push a little girl toward playing with dolls if we were not trying to socialize her into a “motherly”, caring role, the one typically fulfilled by females? There is so much emphasis placed on the difference between genders by society, but little acknowledgement of the differences simply between individual people, and the sameness shared across gender lines. Pertaining to physical ability in sports, “it is assumed that all men are similar in size and strength and different from all women…[yet there are] more significant within- [gender] group differences than between-group differences” (Lorber, pg 35). It is common to differentiate certain weight classes in a sport such as men’s wrestling, yet, for various socially constructed gender reasons, a woman who fit into any certain weight class would not readily be allowed to compete against men.
In our society it is so important that men and women are separate, defined groups, yet there are always exceptions to any assumptions about behaviors or roles filled by “men” or “women”. One might say that men are aggressive and autonomous by nature, or that women are relationship oriented and likely to be passive. But then there are the men who stay at home with their children, who are shy and afraid to speak up in meetings, who form close bonds with their friends. There are the women who are single, and are quite content, and the women who are at the top of their law firm because they have gone after what they wanted. Are these people of a different gender than they appear to be? They do not fit the parameters laid out by society on what is acceptable for their gender, yet their basic biological sex is the same as any other man or woman.
This brings up a point that if there are only two primary ‘gender categories’, based seemingly only on superficial stereotypes, then why are most of the contributions of the female gender completely ignored in historical and political areas? Also, why is it that gender can be used in such a way to discriminate and oppress half of the population? Women’s studies is the first discipline to attempt to answer these questions, or at least to bring them to the attention of the ordinary people. The fact that men and women, whether same or different, have been given such differential treatment throughout all of history, cannot be disregarded. The fact that for most of history, a woman’s “place” has been in the home and a man’s in the political sphere is quite important – would we have had a similar history, had women been more prominent? Our history is defined by “men’s…inability to get along with each other – their wars and rulerships” (Lorber: 41, from MacKinnon, 1987: 36). We cannot change actual political history, however, but we can change how history is told.
The physiological and hormonal differences between biological males and females, as well as the basic reproductive differences, seem to be what leads to the subjugation of females as a class, the status of females as second-class citizens. Females are biologically conditioned to play a more passive role in society – because of (typical) body size and motherhood. While certainly not all women will give birth in their lifetime, at this point it is not a function of the male body, and therefore holds women to a position in which she will be incapacitated for some time. Even when females choose to not have children, their bodies still function so that a pregnancy may occur – and menstruation, hormone swings, and even “PMS” are theoretically causes of female oppression. Women are given maternity leave, but at what cost? Someone must care for the children, and since this job is so often allocated to the woman, her career is put in jeopardy. Some would say that this it is a question of priorities, whether rearing children or a high-powered career is more important. However, this leads to further inequalities between men and women, and further complicates whether there is inherent sameness or differences between the two.
Even the female role in sexual intercourse can be inferred to demonstrate that she will play a passive role in society – being on the “receiving” end, and therefore dependent on the male role in order to perform any duties. In the socially accepted definition of rape, while not the legal definition, a man forces a woman into sex. It is almost unheard of for a woman to force a man – that is, it is unheard of because it is socially unacceptable. Given the nature of sexual intercourse, the generally accepted idea is that the man must be the initiator and therefore, the aggressor when the situation of rape is involved. This idea is being challenged in an interesting book by Katie Roiphe, who in her book The Morning After: Sex, Fear and Feminism on Campus, claims that “acquaintance rape is just a term radical feminists use to describe a night that you regret”, as reported in an article by the media-criticizing web magazine Extra!. However one defines rape personally, it is still socially defined from a male perspective.
When one supposes that all humans are the same, with no major differences as to gender, however, the question arises “why should we be so all-inclusive and politically correct?” Specifically with regards to scientific or even academic testing and studies, why would it matter, then, if attention were given to dividing the study evenly between male and female participants? I believe the answer to be that while, innately, humans are the same, we have all been conditioned by society (and not necessarily “wrongly” so) into gendered groups, such that neither group can be ignored. It is only fair that if the results of a study are supposedly geared towards the population at large, it should be based on results from a definitive sample of that population. Also, in the construct of the English language as patriarchal, using words such as “mankind” seem to point to a dominant position of males, and therefore it is so thoroughly embedded in our mental processes that we do not even think of it as such.
While the sameness/difference debate is highly controversial, its intrinsic questioning of gender identity and roles is what adds to the purpose of a discipline such as Women’s Studies. The issues surrounding gender (including but not limited to women and men), humanity, nature vs. nurture, society, and many others, are intertwined within both Women’s Studies and the sameness/difference debate.
References:
Boyer, et al. “The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People, vol. II” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2000) chapter 10
Lorber, Judith. “Believing is Seeing: Biology as Ideology” (cited)
Maccoby, Eleanor. “Sex Differences in Intellectual Functioning”
http://www.fair.org/extra/9311/rape-statistics.html
papers and essays · home at last · life at depaul