Consequences of Strict Societal Dictated Gender Roles
Summary and Discussion of Chapter Three: Gender Role Attitudes
Sickness in Society: the Consequences of Strict Societal Dictated Gender Roles
Traditional values are strong within the United States of America but winds of change have been howling for years. The changing of tides have been a long time coming and a new perception and acceptance of differences is sweeping over the nation. The perception of the traditional American societal-norms for gender roles are in flux, bending and twisting to provide alternatives to long-standing rigidity that our society has held dear to. No longer is the monogamous nuclear family the only acceptable option. A new age is coming for Mr. Moms, and female CEOs. But in order to make these fluctuations in societal norms permanent, bigotry and stereotyping must be overcome and snuffed out first. And until that happens, these new waves of normal will continue to crash upon divided beaches, pulling back and crashing again over and over like the tides.
Is it okay for a female to work outside of the home in a job usually reserved for males, and conversely for a male to remain in the home to care for children and handle chores? Years ago, the answer to both of these questions would have been a resounding no. But today traditional values are in transition and on the path to egalitarian values. But what does this mean? Traditional values are just that, traditional gender roles: the men work and act as the breadwinners for the family while the women care for children and take care of the home. It is a world in which men hold all power and make all decisions, while the woman sits by because she is the fairer sex. Does this sound right? Many people presently would say no. Egalitarian values shred the idea of a dominant sex to indiscriminant pieces. In an egalitarian world, men and women hold the same responsibilities, the same expectations, and the same amount of power. It is a world without sex discrimination and a world closer to being equal for all. However, this is still a distant dream as the majority of the world and a decent sized population in the United States in particular subscribe to the transitional values. What this means is that women and men are somewhat equal, but the standards present in traditional values still hold strong. Women can work outside the home, but should spend far more time caring for the home and any offspring while men can help at home more, but should place more emphasis on work. How do we know this is the case? There is a scale, the Attitudes toward Women Scale (ATWS), which helps evaluate attitudes with regards to gender roles, the predominant determination of whether or not someone is traditional, transitional, or egalitarian. The scale uses questions that specifically accentuate a difference in acceptable traits between men and women, and then allows responses on a strongly agree, mildly agree, mildly disagree, strongly disagree scale. Receiving a high score indicates egalitarian attitudes while low scores point to traditional. Anywhere in between is transitional. However, the issue with the ATWS is that it’s a self-test which means it can be lied about, not to mention that questions are outdated and do not include the issues of abortion, military servitude, childcare, and name changes upon marriage, et cetera. According to this outdated and flawed scale, however, most of the population scores as liberal and egalitarian. This is probably a falsified and exaggerated result.
Why do I believe the ATWS scale failed to adequately convey the true opinions and beliefs of the majority of the population? I believe this because sexism still runs rampant in our present, modern 21st century. Misogyny should have died out with the rise and victories of the Women’s Rights Movement, but it is still so painfully present in today’s society. To start, the definition of sexism is the attitude or feeling towards people based on sex alone and comes in two main categories: traditional and modern. Traditional sexism is the belief that women should remain in their traditional role-the homemaker-and should receive special treatment for being the less competent and fairer sex. Modern sexism is a denial that any sort of discrimination exists, thinking women are given preferential treatment (rather than understanding that women having to fight for their rights in society and in the workplace) and reacting in an antagonistic manner to the demands or requests of women. Modern sexism can manifest itself in sexist speech (ie. considering an aggressive female CEO a “bitch” because she defies the long standing archetype that women are “kind” and “soft”) as well as denying that women have a harder time being accepted into jobs that are traditionally “male”. These two categories can each be further broken down into two classifications each: hostile and benevolent. These are rather self explanatory, hostile sexism is just that: hostility towards women in order to maintain the superior or dominant position. It also manifests itself in the ignorance and myths surrounding rape, as well as an endorsement of “rape culture”. Benevolent sexism, on the other hand, is classified as more positive feelings towards women and a focus on maintaining the “social order” and “coherency”. It centers on traditional gender roles and men protecting women, the “fairer sex”, because they cannot take care of themselves and need men. Across the world, different regions are heavier in hostile or benevolent sexism, but it varies based on culture and continent. The irony is that often women need to seek protection against extremely hostile sexism (ie. throwing acid on female activists’ faces in the Middle East) from the very group that threatens them. The bigger the threat, the stronger the incentive is to accept benevolent sexism as a protective ideology. Other groups that face discrimination that echoes sexism are the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBT/Q) communities across the globe and country. Homophobia is the fear of homosexuals or associating with homosexuals. Often times, men are more threatened because homosexuality goes against the “normal” heterosexual relationships so long revered as the paradigm of male dominance over the female. Those with traditional gender role attitudes often have high ATWS scores in modern sexism or benevolent sexism and thereby commonly have the most negative attitudes toward homosexuality. This is often most apparent in sports and the perception of archetypes in sports. Males in sports often use the athleticism to validate masculinity, while females in sports often times can be a stigma on the woman, due to a false or indirect connection to lesbianism. Perhaps because of these circumstances and the human flaw to fear what is not understood, homosexuals make up 17 percent of all hate crimes. Alongside homosexuals are transgendered persons or transsexual persons, who are even more likely to be victims of physical and sexual assault, as well as harassment. Especially so if the Trans* (abbr. for people who apply transgender label to themselves) person in question is a male-to-female (MTF) transition, rather than female-to-male (FTM) transition. This is the case because of transphobia-which goes hand-in-hand with homophobia-, the revulsion or irrational fear of transgendered and transsexual people, cross dressers, feminine men, and masculine women. This revulsion or fear is usually garnered because Trans* people break the barriers of not just sexuality, but gender to a very large degree. This shattering of norms often disturbs those of traditional and even transitional mindset whereby bringing in the hate and cruelty. Conclusively, almost all forms of sexism are rooted in patriarchy, gender differences, sexual reproduction, or a mix of two or all three.
There exists a very strange paradox within the scope of sexism: women are of a lower status than men, but the female stereotype is better than the male stereotype. But, what are these stereotypes and what exactly do they mean in regards to gender roles and the primary issue of tearing down traditional bigotry? Stereotypes are perceived notions about someone based upon superficial aspects of the person. Usually these stereotypes end up becoming the self-fulfilling prophesy, meaning stereotyping can cause us to alter normal behavior to others so that these others end up confirming the stereotype. In our present, 21st century society, stereotyping is ultimately harmful and socially restricts the behavior of others to better match what society deems acceptable and normal. Media and other social outlets emphasize this, and therefore people feel pressured to conform to the socially acceptable gender-role stereotypes, regardless to whether or not these stereotypes are valid or applicable. Often times, the stereotypes are internalized; essentially restricting opportunities for both sexes by, for example, highlighting certain careers as feminine and others as masculine to influence men and women with regards to which path to take. Not only are there gender stereotypes, but there are sexuality stereotypes as well, such as the “effeminate gay man” and the “butch lesbian.” Although these stereotypes have become less pronounced and shown in a less negative view due to television and media exposure, the stereotypes still exist and run rampant. It’s impossible to say whether or not these stereotypes are “accurate,” that is to say closer to truth than myth. And although some studies state that the gender role stereotypes are accurate, such results should be taken with a grain of salt because while it is obvious that stereotypes are rooted in some truths, it does not therefore imply that those isolated instances of truth can be applied to a whole population. These skewed and improper perceptions need to change. Forcing or expecting people to take specific paths or act in a certain way because biology dictates they be either male or female is extremely narrow-minded and restrictive. There must be a new alternative to this ridiculously dogmatic outlook. There must be a certain circumstance that can force people to see the fault in believing stereotypes, a circumstance that can influence the change and ultimate death of stereotypes. This situation can and will arise when people are presented with someone who disconfirms one aspect of a stereotype or many, but otherwise has some cohesion. In these cases, the lack of complete conformity can cause an alteration of perception. Complete disproval is usually met with resistance, as commonly when shown someone who completely disconfirms a stereotype, the information is ignored or situational attributions are offered for the lack of conformity. Although I disagree with that statement to a degree, I also understand why it exists. As a trend, people tend to fear what they do not understand, and having someone breach the rigid boxes of gender society forces us into is a foreign and strange concept and becomes all the more frightening when it happens locally. People may not understand why or how these breaches or complete destructions of the societal dictated gender boxes happen, and therefore instill within themselves a sense of fear-hence why homophobia and transphobia exist-and in some cases, hostile reactions to the sudden change brought about by the magnificent coup d'état of social norm revolution that is sweeping the nation and the world.
Article One: “Challenging Sexism USA”
1) “ … example of the lack of seriousness toward the issue of sexual assault-and of the sexist attitudes that pervade U.S. society, even as women are told we live in a ‘post-feminist’ era where we're all equal now and therefore have nothing to complain about. And if you do complain, your either "don't have a sense of humor" or are "turning women into victims.” This quote rings true with statements and opinions of mine that have already been said. What the author of the article, Elizabeth Schulte, is speaking of is a prime example of modern sexism. This has everything to do with gender roles, as it is dividing females from males, and bringing in the old, outdated patriarchal perceptions about acceptable permissions for men versus women. That the Women’s Rights and Feminist Movements of the past already occurred is not an excuse to dismiss the difficulties that women face in this so-called “post-feminist” era and definitely not an okay to return to patriarchy-derived sentiments about sexual assault or the sexual rights of women. It makes me question whether or not all the rallying of the women of the past was for naught, especially if these sentiments are so ingrained into our present culture. Perhaps it’s time for women to take the streets again.
2) “… fraternity made pledges chant, ‘No means yes, yes means anal’ at an initiation event … Zeta Psi brothers in front of the campus women's center-which provides sexual assault counseling-holding signs that read, ‘We love Yale sluts’.” This is not only disgusting, but a brilliant example of hostile sexism teeming with patriarchal, modern views. Do we ever see women holding signs or chanting these sorts of things about men? No. Why is this? Because the traditional gender roles present in society-very obviously present in fraternity culture-doesn’t allow for the objectification of men, only women. Why? This is because according to traditional values, men are dominant and women are submissive to mans’ wants and desires. Not only is this a steaming pile of B.S., it’s backwards and sexist to the extreme. In American culture, while words like “slut” and “whore” apply only to women, there is no equivalent term for men, and terms like “man-whore” and “man-slut” don’t count as the comparison is directly drawn to women perceived as promiscuous by society. This is just blatant sexism. So blatant, it might as well be smacking me across the face.
3) “… Republicans tried to include language redefining rape into a bill that would ban federal funding for abortions, arguing that the definition should be narrowed to include only "forcible rape." In other words, it would be the responsibility of the victim to prove that she tried to fight off her rapist in order to qualify as being raped.” The more and more I dig, the more and more sexist nonsense of our society rises to the surface. There are two main issues here. First is the attack on women for being raped in the first place, and second is the denial of basic reproductive rights based on a literary redundancy that is so pointless it enrages me. First of all, sexual assault is traumatic. Requiring the woman to prove she’s been raped by force-which is a redundant and pointless statement, but I’ll get into that shortly-is not only insensitive but a trigger just waiting to be pulled. Traumatic events often times are repressed by the brain to save the victim from the severity but sometimes there are little things that can cause that mental wall to collapse. Having to recount every single thing she did to fend off her rapist is just a huge potential for triggers and a relapse into memories of fear and helplessness. This is blatant hostile sexism; purposefully inflicting this traumatic experience of recounting the event is harmful and antagonistic against women. How do I know this? I only need to look at my closest friend who was raped for eight years by her older brother before she spoke up. You only need to see what that kind of trauma does to a person to understand exactly how damaging it is for the victim. Onto the second matter at hand, I said previously that “forcible rape” is a redundant term, and it is. By definition, rape is (noun) “an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation” and (verb w/ object) “to force to have sexual intercourse.” The word force and other variants are present in the very definition! Any sexual act that occurs under some pretense of force or lack of mutual consent can be considered rape. Finally, the suspension of the right to an abortion if the victim cannot “prove” it was a “forcible rape” is misogyny and completely hostile traditional sexism. The fact that this event even made it to congress sickens me, and makes me worried for future generations if this trend continues. Men (and politicians with very un-scientific opinions and “facts” about the female body) have no say in what a woman does with her body. None at all. To even think that he does is just idiocy and a return to archaic patriarchy.
4) “According to the most recent U.S. Census Bureau statistics, on average, a woman earns 77 cents for every dollar a man earns in a similar occupation … the gap grows greater … earn about 90 percent of what men earn until around the age of 35. After 35, women's median earnings decrease to between 70 and 80 percent of the median earnings of men, and remain there until retirement.” That this sort of sex discrimination even exists is nauseating. In our current society, old ideas of the woman being in the house and the man at work are archaic and irrelevant. More and more women are becoming the breadwinners in their families, and therefore the family’s lifestyle is dependent on not the man’s wages, but the woman’s. The fact that women still-even after Women’s Rights acts and movements-earn 23 cents less than men do, especially now where more women are the sole supporters for their families, is sickening and a blatant reflection of benevolent sexism, although the argument can be made that it is hostile sexism because it is a deliberate lower wage to put stress on the woman and her family.
5)“… in 2010, women represented 46.7 percent of the U.S. labor force, and they were nearly twice as likely as men to work part time.” My arms are in the air, frustration mounting. This statement, when reference taken from the prior bullet point, makes it all the more apparent that gender discrimination in salaries and in the workplace should not be legal nor should they even exist at this point. If the workforce is this closely divided between females and males, why does the pay discrepancy even exist for any reason aside from hostile and/or benevolent sexism and traditional patriarchal beliefs about male dominance over the female? Sexism is so rampant in our culture that it permeates into who gets more money for doing the exact same job, with the exact same skill set. Essentially, this 46.7 percent of women in the workforce is only representative of the women who have a job in which taxes are deducted. But if I was to stop and think, there are countless jobs out there that are done under-the-table, so to speak, and these under-the-table jobs held by women are not accounted for in this number. If they were, I would estimate that number being even closer to 50 percent, if not slightly more. Women do more than their share, so why are we still being inhibited by traditional gender roles and sexism? It makes all the past Women’s Rights movements seem all but pointless if my society has reverted to the misogyny and discriminatory values of the past sexist bigots. I think it’s time once again for women to take to the streets in protest. Something must be done.
Article Two: Many Voices against Sexual Assault
1)“… a Toronto police constable, who said, ‘Women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized’.” A police officer-especially one of such a position-should be working to end sexual assault, not promoting victim-blaming and accusing women of being promiscuous. This is blatant hostile sexism. If a woman chooses to wear a short skirt, it doesn’t mean she’s asking for a man to feel her up and rape her, but society decided to come up with a lovely word for those women who act outside the bounds of acceptable promiscuity: “slut.” This gender-specific word acts as a stigma on women everywhere, a stigma of little to no relevance. A woman should not be bound by societal-essentially the patriarchal, male-standards when it comes to her own sexuality, especially when the opposite can be considered for males. If a woman has sexual relationships with a dozen men, she is considered a “slut”. But if a man were in the same situation, he’s a “player” or a “stud.” Both words have a positive correlation to the man, while the female term has negative ones. This is a double standard; gender discrimination in its finest, most obvious form.
2) “… every person in this country is either a survivor, or knows someone who is a survivor.” This statement stuck out to me, as I myself know many survivors and the struggles they’ve gone through to maintain normalcy. This is not a false statistic. Sexual assault is rampant in this country, and the sexist misogynists will say it’s because girls are getting “sluttier” but in truth rape has nothing to do with sex. Rape is about power. Rape is about dominance. Let’s see, what else has to do with dominance that has already been discussed? Oh, yeah, that’s right. Traditional, hostile sexism does. It supports the superior position of the male and the inferior position of the woman, the dominance of man over woman. Rape and rape myths are rooted in traditional sexism, especially hostile sexism. That a woman “was asking for it” based on her clothing implies that she dresses that way to impress someone “superior”. It implies that when women wear clothing society considers provocative, it is an open invitation to the dominant male that says, “come on, I want you to f**k me.” Not every action a woman takes is to please men, and if someone believes that then they are surely a raging misogynist who subscribes to traditional sexist nonsense.
3) “The overrepresentation of young women being assaulted points the finger at a systemic problem of a lack of education around what consensual sex is, as the sign ‘My rapist didn't know he raped me’ points out.” This lack of education is disheartening to me. The fact that women and men are often provided with an abstinence-only sexual education in many schools-especially those below the “Bible Belt” of America-is a catalyst for this lack of safe, consensual sex education. I said before that rape is not about sex, and it isn’t. Rape is about power and dominance, but the act itself is sexual in nature and therefore should be addressed in the education of future generations. Society divides men and women, offering double standards and ideals to strive for based on gender alone. The blame falls on those who support the idea that “boys will be boys” and therefore women should cover up to protect themselves. That this traditionally based, patriarchal society can tell women how to act and behave while doing the complete opposite for men is backwards and essentially sexist. It shouldn’t matter if someone is male or female; it is never acceptable to take sexual liberties without consent. Rape can destroy a person, and no one is entitled to something if it involves another person’s body.
4) “… this is not just a women's struggle, as should be evidenced from the attendance at the march. Trans[*] people are disproportionately survivors of sexual assault, with 74 percent reporting some sort of sexual harassment and 10 percent of hate crimes against trans[*] people also involving sexual assault.” As I am a member of the LGBT/Q community, this statement strikes a chord in me. Victimization of those who do not conform to the two-gender societal standard is a prime example of threatened traditional, hostile sexists lashing out against what they fear is crippling their patriarchal, discriminatory social order. Trans* people by default defy the gender-specific boxes they were placed into at birth by society, branching out and redefining male, female, and everywhere in between. I myself identify as Queer, falling somewhere between male and female without a set gender. This and others falling in various areas in the sexual and gender spectrum are naught more than strange phenomena to traditional sexists who don’t understand that gender is not just between male and female; a foreign concept, and it scares them. This is why so many hate crimes and sexual assaults pile up-especially in the Trans* people’s courts. It’s not because they are “asking for it” or being “promiscuous” or anything along those patriarchal exceptions/excuses, but because those patriarchal traditionalists are scared and don’t know how to accept such a radical destruction of traditional social norms regarding gender and sexuality.
5) “… this [SlutWalk] was not inherently about reclaiming words, but about pushing back against sexual violence-and making connections within that struggle about how racism, xenophobia, transphobia, homophobia and all forms of oppression need to be fought side by side.” This statement is nothing more than complete truth. If I ever met the person who wrote it, I would probably hug her and thank her for such clear, concise words about the issues. Sexism, homophobia, and transphobia are all issues centered on gender, sexuality, and traditionally based male/female roles in society but they are part of a bigger issue. Egalitarianism-as stated earlier-is the goal in the fight against these three gender issues and is also a step towards equality for all peoples across the globe. If we can conquer sexism, homophobia, and transphobia, we can conquer all the limitations traditional societal norms have pressed on all the people of the globe.
RESOURCES USED OR REFERENCED
Helgeson, Vicki S. "Gender Role Attitudes." The Psychology of Gender. Fourth ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002. 67-100. Print.
http://socialistworker.org/2011/06/01/challenging-sexism-usa
http://socialistworker.org/2011/10/10/many-voices-against-sexism