In Hilde Lindeman’s opinion, gender is not factually based. Gender is a norm established by society. In her essay “What is Feminist Ethics?” she details the effects that a prescriptive gender identity can bear on the interactions and relationships between men and women. According to Lindeman, “it’s a power relation, so it tells men that they’re entitled to things that women aren’t supposed to have and it tells women that they are supposed to defer to men and serve them” (155). Society’s construction of gender spurs the sole delegation of power positions to men over women and the unequal distribution of resources, such as money.
The potential effects of defined gender are clearly identified by Lindeman in her essay. However, what she points out is not so clear, is how we as a society actually discern these definitions and draw a black-and-white line between male and female. She points to cases like those with Klinefelter’s syndrome, with three sex chromosomes, and the gray scale of gender that enters in cases of transgender or gender neutrality.
Lindeman’s discussion of the gray scale and indefiniteness of gender sparked my memory on a discussion I attended a few weeks ago on the implications of identity. A woman of mixed races and with no singular cultural heritage detailed her struggles of trying to figure out which box she fit into to present herself to society. When she filled out forms for college, should she check white, black or Latino? Technically, she fell under all three categories. She quickly became frustrated by the endless quest for a singular, easily label-able identity. What is identity anyways, she pondered.
As a society, we have a concept of identity to simplify our perceptions of each other and the world around us. Gender serves a similar purpose. Obviously the existence of both prescriptions have a purpose and have served us well – how else could these mindsets survive over the years? A society without a clear definition of anything would be chaos; we would be overloaded with information to process if we considered each and every person on an individual basis.
But, as countered in the identity discussion I attended, the stereotypes that automatically follow the creation of identity and gender definitions lead to controlling another person’s reality. Like identity, gender creates physically boundaries that stop change and spur and ignorant, close-minded society.
Eliminating these labels from our vocabulary is unrealistic and would be ineffective. But I think the point of both Lindeman and the speaker I attended is this: we need to be aware that these labels are just that. These concepts are generalizations to help us simplify our vision of the world. However, when we come in close contact, generalizations do not serve us.
I agree with Becca's assessment that the world would be chaos without certain clear-cut definitions. Any sense of organization would be seemingly impossible, and generalizations would indeed be a forgotten concept. But analyzing the world we live in, I ,too, believe that generalizations can be detrimental to certain groups such as women (as Lindeman discussed). This also applies to race, and the specific stereotypes each have acquired can stifle their upward mobility in certain areas like the workplace. In my opinion, these generalizations are wrong and consequential. So, in a sense, I find it hard to argue against the idea that generalizations do not serve us. Everyone was created equal, and should be given equal opportunity to succeed in every aspect of life. Certain generalizations take that away and fail to offer a level playing field. Additionally, I believe generalizations and stereotypes are a direct product of the lack of exposure many individuals have experienced throughout their development. Just like we discussed in class, dominant groups tend to have biased beliefs on various levels. Most of the time they do not question those beliefs (because they feel they are the norm) and that is why these generalizations and stereotypes have prevailed throughout time.
ReplyDelete