Category: Gender

Introduction to Gender as a Social Construct

From the beginning of time, there has been a distinction between men and women. Although most are all able to recognize this social construct which has been present for thousands of years, why is this societal difference so prominent? And why do people unconsciously create it?

The Sociological Perspective on Gender

The sociology of gender examines the role that society has on our understanding of the difference between masculinity, what society deems acceptable to be a “man,” and femininity, what society deems as acceptable to be a “woman.” This constructs gender norms, the socially acceptable ways of acting out of gender. These norms are learned early in life through socialization as the child slowly becomes accustomed to this learned lifestyle based on what they are taught by their parents, school, media, and various prevalent institutions. Through time as these institutions evolve, so does this gender norm. This has allowed each gender to develop its own distinct set of norms, which sociologist Raewyn Connell dives into.

Raewyn Connell’s Theory of Masculinities

Connell notes that by the 1940s, the terms “sex role,” “male role,” and “female role” were used by the masses. She says that so as to talk about masculinities one must speak about the relations between genders, declaring how this word speaks about the position of men in society and not about a preconceived definition people simply follow. These gender relations are patterns of practices that groups of people engage in. Whether people realize it or not, they are the ones that dictate the term’s definition and give it the importance that it has. Society is largely based on whether people conform to this current meaning of such a primitive word and from this choose the importance of the individual. So now, let’s further discuss this idea of masculinity and the male role.

Connell states that masculinity’s change in history and that woman have a considerable role in creating them during their interactions with males. Her writing talking of her takes on masculinity in different social settings eventually led to her book Masculinities. Unlike other sociology works on men, the book focused on the numerous natural types of masculinity that have developed over time.

Hegemonic Masculinity and Gender Inequality

Out of this and her other works sprouted her idea of hegemonic masculinity, a practice that legitimizes powerful men’s dominance in society and justifies the lesser role of the common male population and women. It analyzes the opinions and practices among men that lead to gender inequality based on this social dominance. This theory has been debated because of its great possibility to figure out the reason for such distinct differences between men and women. It has led to many other studies and research that further dive into this idea of varying masculinities.

Global Perspectives on Masculinity

Another novel that divulges this idea is a set of studies by sociologists Michael S. Kimmel, Jeff R. Hearn, and of course Raewyn Connell. The Handbook of Studies of Men and Masculinities discusses the construct of masculinity under four perspectives: the social organization of masculinities in their global and regional iterations, the institutional reproduction and articulation of masculinities, the ways in which interactions between men and women lead to gender inequalities, and the ways in which men express and understand their gender roles. Overall, it explores the idea of gender identity as a constant process and how much this process depends on others to continue it. This idea of masculinity is greatly shaped by major institutions in society, such as the workplace, as stated previously by Connell. Yet a key need for gender research on men is the fact that the majority of studies focus on women and contemporary feminism, all researched by women. Luckily, these studies have led many sociologists to realize the need for male-dominated studies about how these social constructs affect them as well. This investigation of the different types of masculinities and their origins and structures has been active for a few decades now since the publishing of this novel. This search behind the reasoning of this social construct has been occurring all over the world, ranging from Canada to Australia, where Connell studies. Global debates have resulted from this prevalent research, a concept the Commission on the Status of Women commented on during their 48th session. They said that over the last several years, more people have been becoming interested in how males have been promoting gender equality. Now, they are taking increased responsibility for the correct ways they should engage with both men and women. This novel dives into this notion, where each chapter is written by experts in their field who are ready to teach the next generation about the era of their ways.

With this said, a specific section from the book, entitled “Social Theories for Researching Men and Masculinities” by Oystein Gullvag Holter focuses on three main problematic concepts based on scientific inquiry that may be causing this inequality: domination, patriarchy, and sexism. He also divulges two social theories: direct gender hierarchy which emphasizes the social primacy of male dominance and structural inequality which is more concerned with social structural relations of gender inequalities. What is interesting about these two ideas is that they greatly differ from the sociobiological assumptions that were made about these gender roles only a few decades ago. Instead, they focus on the sex-gender ways of defining this topic and rather rely on the social creation and construct of gender to relay this definition. Holter notes that research about gender questions the division between neutral and gendered and doesn’t question the difference between masculine and feminine. This means that sociologists instead need to focus on indirect forms of how we create structural inequality based on gender. Other emerging studies on men and masculinities have confirmed the significance of the social context for the different types of views on this subject that we are now seeing. This again brings up the fact that various institutions are having a major effect on the social construct, and this is causing problems because of this patriarchal critique.

Another area of the book explores the ways constructions of masculinity rely on local culture and the collisions of those local cultures with the outside world. There is a new present need for a global perspective in studies of men and masculinity, which this next chapter divulges into. The main focuses of similar research, as the author states, have had a common characteristic focus and style, mostly consisting of the making of masculinity in a particular moment or place. This style has made use of ethnographic ways of constructing research that brought up this issue of masculinity. It made evident that studies correlate to this idea of “sex roles.” What is so significant about these types of studies is that they show these “sex roles” from the perspective of both a local and global perspective. After all, masculinities are largely shaped by global society and global structures.

The Impact of Globalization on Gender Constructs

It is imperative to understand that masculinities and femininities are produced together in the same process. Now, this connects to the concept of the globalization of gender. Having to shift from picturing gender as a global attribute as opposed to an individual one is very difficult. However, gender on a global scale is largely what produces this concept. Because social institutions are the basic principles of sociology, social institutions also greatly affect the sociology of gender. These institutions include global markets, state corporations, and large-scale institutions. Because most people interact with these organizations on a daily basis, they have proven to be about gender politics, which leads sociologists to be able to recognize the existence of a world gender order. Therefore, changes in the global economy, for example, can greatly change this social construct. A key element of this concept is that globalization revolves around economic changes that lead to the current state of capitalism. So with these continuous and inevitable changes comes an altered global view of gender. Globalization refers to a very large-scale process, and it has effects that appear great in this social construct. This novel as a whole discusses the various factors that change the idea of masculinities, including this idea of globalization but also the social theories for this phenomenon.

Judith Lorber’s Feminist Perspective on Gender

Now that the male theory on gender inequalities and the social causes of this, let’s focus more on the female take on the subject. Sociology’s first feminist Judith Lorber also used her theories on this issue to develop her book entitled Paradoxes of Gender. In this novel, she examines the most basic assumptions of gender and challenges their thought process. The text acknowledges female significance in the contribution to gender inequality while also celebrating women based on the improvements they have made in recent society. She shows her view on the face that gender as a whole is a product of socialization, subject to human agency, organizations, and interpretation. Her paradigm states that yes, gender is an institution, but one comparable to the economy, family, and religion. She uses this paradox of gender to question society, asking various things such as why society has developed this idea of two completely opposite genders. According her, she argues that the gender system is there to maintain structure and inequality, producing a natural hierarchy of a lower and higher being. Ahead of her time, she concludes by describing a world where there is complete equality and where people view others separate of their race, gender, and social class. With this in mind, key elements of her book add to her hypothesis of gender and her reasoning for questioning the basic elements of what is known as “gender.”

Conclusion: Challenging and Reimagining Gender Norms

The first line says that talking about gender is like fish talking about water. This initial thought highlights the premise of the question of why has gender become so structured and for what purpose? Gender has become a routine activity that has slowly morphed into a social norm, equivalent to fish talking about an object that consumes that at all times. Water is essential for their existence and there is no getting around this fact, just as there is seemingly no way to get around this image of another person’s gender. This social construct, as Lorber notes, is taken for granted and no longer questioned. However, this is of course what she intends to do, highlighting the reason for people doing so and why this barrier between the two sexes has been drawn without examination. Although this novel was written over twenty years ago, this idea still applies. Baby showers are still featuring this color scheme depending on the sex of the unborn baby. Therefore, gender has been implemented in us since before we were born. It is a part of our social life. Yet people are the ones who produce and constantly depend on these gender norms in order to feel safe in an ordered environment.

“Doing gender” is something that is done without thought and without thinking twice. Every day, men and women are expected to act in a certain fashion. Lorber points out that gender signs and signals have become so commonplace that many no longer even realize that they are there. Over time, this issue has developed to the point where many have failed to realize that these boundaries exist unless they deviate from the norm. They are uncomfortable until they are let right. This sociologist, however, also notes that two other genders exist: transvestite, a person who dresses in opposite gender clothes, and transsexual, a person who has had sex-change surgery. People of this type change their gender and construct their status by speaking, acting, and dressing in the socially acceptable way of the sex they were not born as. This book is so relevant to this question of why gender norms are created because she is able to talk about the issue from both an unbiased sociology perspective and as a woman greatly affected by this issue.

· Introduction to the issue:

There are suggestions that online sexual victimization can be explained as cross-gender cyberbullying while both regarded as abuses of power towards the weaker. While behaviors termed bullying are unacceptable, there is some social tolerance of sexual victimization as “normal” by adolescents and teachers. The victims are often blamed for how they have been maliciously treated (Shute, Owens, and Slee 2008, p.479). Sexting refers to the sharing of the sexual content of individuals on social media. Sexual victimization occurs when these images are being distributed on the internet by the perpetrators without consent (Woodlock 2014, p. 28). Contrasting the Victorian Inquiry, the US National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children states that sexting does not apply where the victim is coerced into these acts. Wolak and Finkelhor (2011), on the other hand, use the word ‘sexting’ for both consensual and non-consensual behaviors. However, they make a distinction between sexting involving abusive elements and sexting intended to please intimate partners. (Henry and Powell, 2015 p. 107).

· Overview of the issue:

Given the evidence of the link between the increasing use of technology and cyberbullying, continued research is crucial (Sakellariou, Carroll, and Houghton 2012, p. 537). In 2012 the National Children’s and Youth Law Centre and Legal Aid NSW conducted a survey on sexting. Around 950 adolescents from the age of 14 to 17 years old participated. Survey respondents were questioned whether they or at least one peer they knew had ever been involved in sexting incidents. The most prevalent sexting incident was being asked for a sexual photo (37.1%), followed by being sent a photo (29.5%), and finally having shared the photo without permission (17.2%). Moreover, the frequency of sexting varied across gender. More girls than boys had been asked or knew someone who had been asked, to share a nude or ‘sexy’ photo (39.3% vs. 27%) (Tallon 2012, p. 13). A number of legal organizations argued that sexting resulting in victimization is not as extensive as researches suggest. They debate that in the majority of cases, sexting is likely to be inoffensive and harmless (Victoria Parliament Committee 2013, p. 36) In most scenarios, an intimate image gets distributed only to the person intended. Victoria Police also state sexting is not a crime and no one has been placed on the Sex Offenders Register for possessing nude pictures of others.

· Associated harms:

Victims of cyberbullying often show symptoms of emotional misery, anxiety, hopelessness, melancholy, anger, and in extreme situations, adolescent suicide. It can negatively impact young people’s friendships and parental relationships. A unique feature of cyberbullying (compared to bullying) is the anonymity of the perpetrator. (Hemphill et al. 2012, p. 60)

Cyberbullying is a multifaced phenomenon and its consequences can be rebounded back to the perpetrators. This usually occurs when perpetrators are socially judged and accused of acting inappropriately. Harms on the perpetrators can include vulnerability to exposure, anxiety, depression, isolation, social phobia, and school avoidance. (Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton 2012, p. 534).

· Characteristics of Cyberbullies

Researchers have found more males among cyberbullies, while others claim there are no significant gender differences in cyberbullying. In fact, girls, who are bullied less often in real life, seem to participate a lot in cyberbullying. This indirect character of cyberbullying is embedded in ‘female’ forms of bullying (Vandebosch and Van Cleemput 2009, p. 1354)

Cyberbullies are usually detached from the school environment, have no peer support and have bad school grades. According to Li’s analysis (2006), most cyberbullies were youngsters who make more use of the internet. Finally, there exists a connection between being a perpetrator and being a victim, as one-third of traditional bullies and 16.7 percent of the victims of traditional bullying were also cyberbullying. (Li, 2006).

· Risks in tackling Cyberbullying/Sexting at school

Hachiya (2017) suggests that once a teacher becomes aware of an incident, an investigation must launch. An allowable search can locate a mobile phone, but teachers must be aware of the dangers of searching, as it is highly intrusive. Another danger is the inability to identify bullying or harassment related to sexting and the failure to report incidents. This may be a result of their lack of moral and legal obligation to respond. While it is true that sexting may not always intend harm, it is also true that bullying can come in the form of sexting. The potential for creating a hostile environment is very real even when unintended (Hatchiya 2017, p. 180).

· Possible approaches to the issues:

‘Risk factors’ increase the probability of a person developing problematic behaviors. Attending a school with a positive climate and being connected to school are associated with a lower risk of bullying. Family conflict and lack of supervision are also predictors of bullying and antisocial behaviors. It is likely to be important in the context of cyberbullying, given that cyberbullying can occur anywhere at any time. (Hemphill et al. 2012, p. 60)

Initiatives to educate adolescents aged 12-15 years should involve primary, secondary and tertiary prevention strategies. Programs and curriculums are more efficient if specific risk factors are targeted and suitable methods are implemented to address those risk factors operating at all levels, including individual, family, peer, school, and community. (Keel 2005, p. 35). Raising awareness so that it is more readily combatted requires professional development for teachers and parents. Schools may need to control access to mobile telephones during school hours. Parents must also consider their supervisory responsibility to prevent or detect cyberbullying (Sakellariou, Carroll and Houghton 2012, p. 545)

· Conclusion:

Further examination is crucial about the motivations of perpetrators, the responses of peers who prefer not to engage with the issues, the emotional and other impacts on the victim. While the technology does not produce new criminal or civil offenses, it continues facilitating unconstructive behaviors. A key challenge for law reform efforts then is to protect individuals from being victimized without trespassing the freedom of their sexual expression.

References:

1. Cook, H. (2016) ‘School children charged with sexting offenses’, Legaldate, (4), p. 10. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsihs&AN=edsihs.300529637649105&authtype=sso&custid=deakin&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 7 January 2020).
2. Hachiya, R. F. 1. rhachiya@ksu. ed. (2017) ‘Dangers for Principals and Students When Conducting Investigations of Sexting in Schools’, Clearing House, 90(5/6), pp. 177–183. DOI: 10.1080/00098655.2017.1366796. (Accessed: 8 January 2020).
3. Hemphill, S. A. et al. (2012) ‘Longitudinal Predictors of Cyber and Traditional Bullying Perpetration in Australian Secondary School Students’, Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(1), pp. 59–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2011.11.019. (Accessed: 10 January 2020).
4. Henry, N. and Powell, A. (eds) (2015) ‘Beyond the ’sext’ : technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment against adult women’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48(1). Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsafs&AN=edsafs.a148323&authtype=sso&custid=deakin&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 11 January 2020).
5. Keel, M. (2005) ‘Working with adolescents in the education system to prevent sexual assault’, Family Matters, (71), p. 36. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=18391475&authtype=sso&custid=deakin&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 9 January 2020).
6. Li, Q. (2006) ‘Cyberbullying in schools: A research of gender differences’, School Psychology International, 27(2), pp. 157–170. DOI: 10.1177/0143034306064547. (Accessed: 8 January 2020).
7. Sakellariou, T., Carroll, A. and Houghton, S. (2012) ‘Rates of cyber victimization and bullying among male Australian primary and high school students, School Psychology International, 33(5), pp. 533–549. DOI: 10.1177/0143034311430374. (Accessed: 9 January 2020).
8. Shute, R., Owens, L., and Slee, P. (2008) ‘Everyday victimization of adolescent girls by boys: Sexual harassment, bullying or aggression?’, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 58(7–8), pp. 477–489. DOI: 10.1007/s11199-007-9363-5. (Accessed: 12 January 2020).
9. Tallon, K. (2012) ‘New Voices / New Laws : school-age young people in New South Wales speak out about the criminal laws that apply to their online behavior / Kelly Tallon … [et al.]’. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsacd&AN=edsacd.293820&authtype=sso&custid=deakin&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 15 January 2020).
10. Vandebosch, H. and Van Cleemput, K. (2009) ‘Cyberbullying among youngsters: Profiles of bullies and victims’, NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY, 11(8), pp. 1349–1371. DOI: 10.1177/1461444809341263. (Accessed: 11 January 2020).
11. Victorian Parliamentary Law Reform Committee. (2013). Inquiry into sexting: Report of the Law Reform Committee Inquiry into Sexting. (Parliamentary Paper No.230, Session 2010–2013) Melbourne, VIC: State Government of Victoria, Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsacd&AN=edsacd.293904&authtype=sso&custid=deakin&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 15 January 2020).
12. Woodlock, D. (2014) ‘Sexting without consent’, DVRCV Advocate, (2), p. 28. Available at: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsihs&AN=edsihs.935534037071910&authtype=sso&custid=deakin&site=eds-live&scope=site (Accessed: 11 January 2020).

Abstract

The examination of gender in relation to language is an interdisciplinary endeavor that has been the subject of interest of linguists, sociologists, anthropologists, communicators, psychologists, and scholars in other disciplines, especially after the 1960s, having as its starting point the feminist movements by the end of that decade. Since then, there has been an ongoing debate on whether language endorses sexism, or sexism contributes on the formation of a language. Both discourse and language reflect social realities governed by hierarchy and dominance and consequently reproduce or perpetuate the network of dominant gender biases and stereotypes.

This paper will focus on the way language functions in favor of dominant groups and on the means that it uses to convey those asymmetric social structures in terms of grammar, syntax and semantics within the Standard Average European linguistic area. The secondary objective of the paper is to demonstrate the existence of the aforementioned elements in all of the languages in question, despite not being amongst their grouping criteria.

Introduction

The term linguistic sexism refers to the existence of certain elements in a language that help expressing any sort of bias, inclination or prejudice for or against one sex on the other. Mostly, the bias is in favor of men. According to Graddol and Swann (1989), this discrimination is made on irrelevant grounds, while Atkinson (1993) defines linguistic sexism as not only the range of verbal practices of labelling and referring to women, but also as the language strategies in mixed sex interaction that denigrate or suppress women as interactants. Moreover, the fact that sexism in general refers to attitudes or behaviors that depreciate one sex, according to Ivy and Backlund (1994), entails that linguistic sexism is the verbal communication that conveys those attitudes and behaviors. Consequently, declaring a word, sentence or structure as sexist means that it “creates, promotes, constitutes and exploits any irrelevant or impertinent marking of the distinction between the sexes”, (Vetterling-Braggin, 1981), or that it “unnecessarily differentiates between women and men or excludes, trivializes, or diminish either gender” (Parks & Roberton, 1998).

Theoretical Framework

Τhe subject of the present work concerns the broader field of linguistics, borrowing much from contemporary sciences of gender studies. As a specific subject, the study of linguistic sexism has been a point of interest not only for linguists, but also for sociologists, and it often has political or even legal implications. So, in order to understand the content of the study, I thought it appropriate to refer to the broader field surrounding it.

Defining sociolinguistics

Over the years, many scholars have attempted to define exactly what sociolinguistics deal with, but one could argue that these definitions change, as does the notion of society over time. Hudson (1980) first attempts to define sociolinguistics as “the study of language in relation to society”. Thus, the main field of interest is how language interacts with, or to what percentage it is affected by social factors as age, ethnicity, social class or gender for instance. Coulmas (2013) goes further by attributing the way we use specific functions of language in different social contexts to convey social meaning or aspects to our identity, while Trudgill (1974) correlates sociolinguistics with “language as a social and cultural phenomenon”. Despite being approximate and not exact, they all focus on understanding “who speak what language to whom and when” (Fishman, 1965).

Gender research, as a sub-discipline of sociolinguistics that governs the present paper, concerns the documentation of empirical differences between women’s and men’s speech, the description of women’s speech in particular as well as the identification of the role of language in creating and maintaining social inequality between women and men (Kendall & Tannen, 2001).

Tagliamonte (2006) makes a clear distinction between ‘sociolinguistics’ and ‘sociology of language’, that needs to be mentioned in the context of this paper, explaining that “sociolinguistics tends to put emphasis on language in social context, whereas the sociology of language emphasizes the social interpretation of language”.

Field of application

The linguistic field that this paper will focus on and from which I will draw examples is the Standard Average European (abbreviated SAE) linguistic area, hence ‘a geographical region containing a group of three or more languages that share some structural features as a result of contact rather than a result of accident or inheritance from a common ancestor’ (Thomason, 2001), as first proposed by Whorf (1941). According to this theory, SAE languages comprise several linguistic branches that all present the same grammatical or syntactical features, including the Romance, Germanic and Slavo-Baltic branches (Haspelmath, 2001). Despite those secondary branches being universally accepted by linguists world-wide, it was only toward the end of the 20th century that SAE area was picked up on by scholars, as they gained insight in the grammatical properties of the languages of the rest of the world and realized the peculiarity of the European linguistic core in the global context, which justifies Dahl’s definition of SAE as an “exotic language” (Dahl, 1990).

Haspelmath recites an extensive list of 35 morphosyntactic characteristics which he addresses as “Europeanisms” or “euroversals” , that include the “‘have’-perfect, definite and indefinite articles, relative clauses with relative pronouns, particles in comparative constructions etc.” (Haspelmath, 2001). However, none of the characteristics that will be analyzed in the second chapter of the paper as indicators of linguistic sexism are classified as unifying elements under this category.

Yet, even amongst those languages, there are factors that could affect or help interpret the results of this study. Thus, considering Stahlberg, Braun, Irmen and Szczesny’s (2007) proposal of distinction between three language types, -genderless , natural gender and grammatical gender languages- we could organize SAE as presented in Table 1. In natural gender languages (e.g. English) there is “no grammatical marking of sex, such that most nouns and their dependent linguistic forms as articles, adjectives and pronouns can be used to refer to both males and females, and personal pronouns are the major resource of expressing gender.” (Menegatti& Rubini, 2017). In grammatical gender languages (e.g. Greek, French, German etc.), all nouns are assigned feminine, masculine or neutral, and the dependent parts of speech carry grammatical agreement to the gender or the corresponding noun.

Due to time restrictions, lack of resources or insight to specific languages, the languages that will be analyzed for the sake of this paper are English, French, Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch, Russian, Lithuanian and Greek, so as to represent all secondary branches and gender division systems.

The origin of sexism in language

Although there has been a lot of research on linguistic structures, aiming to identify the causes of sexism in language, most of them tend to attribute its development to an androcentric world view, neglecting the “social and semiotic processes involved in the historical production and reproduction of this kind of linguistic sexism” (Coady, 2018). The semiotic processes of iconization, fractal recursivity and erasure, as proposed by Irvine & Gal (2000), appear to play a significant role in the standardization and the dissemination of the features that will be analyzed in the next chapter. More specifically, iconization is defined as “a transformation of the sign relationship between linguistic features (or varieties) and the social images with which they are linked”, fractal recursivity as “the projection of an opposition, salient at some level of relationship, onto some other level, as for instance, intra-group oppositions projecting outward onto intergroup relations, or vice versa”, while erasure is defined as “the process by which ideology, in simplifying the sociolinguistic field, renders some persons or activities (or sociolinguistic phenomena) invisible” (Irvine & Gal, 2000), which will be more apparent in Chapter 7.

Language & Cognition

Many feminists have examined the representation of women in language and have argued that language encodes a culture’s values, and in this way reflects sexist culture. Yet, as Cameron suggests, instead of simply portraying language as a reflection of society or as a determining factor in social change, it could rather be seen “as a carrier of ideas and assumptions which become, through their constant re-enactment in discourse, so familiar and conventional that we miss their significance” (1990). On the same wavelength, Whorf lays out the principle of his theory on the relation of the language and thought, often referred to as “linguistic relativity” or “Sapir-Whorf hypothesis”, on the following quotation:

“It was found that the background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) is not merely a reproducing instrument for voicing ideas, but rather is itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide for the individual’s mental activity, for his analysis of impressions, for his synthesis of his mental stock in trade. Formulation of ideas is not an independent process, strictly rational in the old sense, but is part of a particular grammar, and differs, from slightly to greatly, between different grammars. We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages. The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find there because they stare every observer in the face; on the contrary, the world is presented in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which has to be organized by our minds- and this means largely by the linguistic systems in our minds” (Whorf, 1956).

In order to further understand Whorf’s association of the background linguistic system of each language as a shaper of ideas, it would be legitimate to first define the notion of relativity in general. According to Hudson (1996), the question of relativity revolves around “the extend that cultures (including languages) differ from one another” and on whether they are all “cut to the same mold, reflecting a common underlying humanity” or “differ arbitrarily and unrestrictedly from one another, reflecting the fact that different people live in very different intellectual and physical worlds”.

Lastly, an interesting remark is being made by Ehrlich and King (1992), whose definition of language entails the element of dominance, stating it is “not a neutral, unbiased and transparent means to represent social reality, but rather a codification of the perspective of the dominant classes”, and thus, in contemporary societies, the encoding of an androcentric worldview. Mauss (1923), also, defines language as “the means of expression of collective thought and not the adequate expression of that thought itself”.

Slavery can be defined as a condition in which one human being was owned by another which meant a slave was considered by law as property, consequently depriving them of most of the rights held by free persons. The slave systems in Africa consisted of internal practices such as Political slavery which was the use of slaves in government/ military, Productive slavery which was the use of slaves in production and Domestic slavery, the use of slaves within households. A common feature across practices is that they all involve trading men, women and children, which raises the question on the importance of gender in shaping or having an effect on the way the African slave systems worked.

Saleability was also another common feature across all practices and in some cases, women were perceived to be more valuable than men because they were high in demand which meant that they consistently brought high prices. This supports the view that gender played a pivotal role in shaping African slave systems, in this essay I will delve into the economic, social and political perspectives of gender and slavery, whilst taking into account the historiography of African slave systems in the 1800s. According to Robertson and Klein in their book ‘Women’s Importance in African Slave Systems’, the majority of sub-Saharan African slaves were women, yet many accounts of African slavery are written as though the slaves were exclusively men as they assume that the owners and users of slaves were male. This is supported by Young who mentions in her work ‘Women, slavery compensation and gender relations in the 1830s’ that although Brathwaite may have argued that Caribbean slavery was essentially a “male enterprise’ the records of the Slavery Compensation depict a different picture. As numerical evidence states that between 40 and 45% of these claims were filled by women suggesting that female ownership was more prevalent than one might assume, therefore supporting the argument that these women received minimal attention in the historiography of slavery abolition.

A way in which gender shaped African slave systems was that women tended to be higher in demand than men which resulted in large economic advantages for the slave owners because enslaved females consistently brought in large profits, thus showing their high monetary value. This is supported by Austen who noted that in Cameroon adult male slaves brought in the best prices in the 1790s however from the 1860s to the 1890s we see the doubling of prices paid for women and children. Robertson and Klein acknowledged in their work that there was a major debate over the function female slaves in regard to production and reproduction, many historians have assumed that African women were preferred as slaves because of their value of reproduction. This is supported by Goody who assumed that female slaves were only valued for biological reproduction. However, this argument can be dismissed because although most colonial North America favoured young men as slave the majority of them were shipped to the West Indies because their sugar crops dominated the international trade economy. This created a gap and thus contributed to the increase in the demand of female slaves because of their availability.

Skilled labour such as carpentry was assigned to male slaves which had a direct impact on the number of men available for agricultural work thus leading to female slaves eventually outnumbering men in field forces. Although, on small farms women were more likely to perform the same labour as men on larger farms field work was divided based on gender because more physically demanding tasks were handed to men. For example, “men might chop wood for a fence while women were put in charge of construction. “ Miller argues that this debate has not been resolved because it is sufficient to point out that both the reproductive and productive functions of women shaped the social lives of female slaves within specific households and communities that their relative importance changed during the life cycle of the female slave and over time. An example of this is that overtime female slaves who tended to be younger girls were mainly employed as agricultural laborers whilst becoming firmly attached to the households of their male owners and through marriage or childbearing.

When looking into the role that gender played in shaping African slave systems, we must explore the different functions enslaved females played within the system proved of more importance than their male counter parts. Mack argues that enslaved females were crucial to the maintenance of the seats of power in 19th century Nigeria and were more highly valued than men in the local market. This formed the structure of the largest slave-holding households in northern Nigerian towns as Shehu Usman dan Fodio began his campaign to reform local Islam in 1804. Raiding and kidnapping became a way of obtaining both male and female slaves but it could be argued that women suffered more from this because of the exploitation of the black woman’s sexuality. Despite this, some enslaved females saw this as a gate way to improve their future life because the relationships that developed between the enslaved females and their owners gave hope to some women hope that such relationships would increase the chances that they or their children would be liberated by their master.

Therefore, it could be argued that gender did shape the African slave systems because men and women were treated differently and, in some cases, women had some advantages over men purely because of their gender. This can also be supported by the fact that women played a major role in the smooth operation of these affluent urban household, especially those highly dominated by Islamic traditions because Islam enforced the seclusion of wives thus giving a rise to the need of domestic slavery. This was prevalent within royal settings where enslaved females had the role of attending to the needs of the wives whilst nurturing their children who also inherited a royal status. Thus, creating the structure of the largest slave-holding households in Northern Nigerian towns as Shehu Usman dan Fodio began his campaign to reform local Islam in 1804.

Furthermore, it is important to consider opposing arguments in regard to whether gender shaped slavery, one could argue that gender may have not shaped slavery because in some regions the sale of enslaved males was close to parity which highlights that gender may have not mattered as much for some slave owners. These regional differences can be supported by how in Zaire River, there was almost equal demand for men as canoe paddlers and women as food producers, and the male to female ratio was close to parity, similarly in Zanzibar there were close to parity mainly because of the high value placed on male labour. Despite this it could still be argued that gender shaped slavery in African slave systems because enslaved males and females were assigned roles based on their gender. For example, men being assigned roles such as canoe paddlers was based on their physicality, it fits into the traditional views of men being strong and women being weak hence why they were given more menial roles such as food producers. Meillassoux and others have also argued that African societies were stratified by age and sex, which determined the division of labour a structure that was incorporated during slavery. This argument can be explored further via Klien’s sociological argument that the greater ease of assimilating enslaved females as opposed to enslaved males is not only due to structural factors and women’s reproductive functions, but also their submissive socialisation because in many societies’ women were almost conditioned to obey men unquestioningly.

Women seemed to be more affected than men socially because if they were freed through their reproductive functions, they were also trapped by them because they often refused to abandon their children. For example, the mother of Swema chose to sell herself into slavery along with her daughter rather than being parted from her, here we do not only see gender shaping slavery we also see its intervention with households and family structures. However, stressing reproduction and assimilation also distorts the position and functions of enslaved females by underestimating their productive functions, purely because arguments which attribute to the high prices paid for women to their biological reproductive function do not hold up very well under the impact of the fertility data available. This argument isn’t consistent because it can be dismissed by the fact that, the internal African market, which was the largest of the 3, absorbed mainly women and children, this was evident not only on the mainland, but also in Madagascar. Therefore suggesting that women were highly valued because of their reproductive functions as it translated in their saleability across many regions.

Intersectionality describes the position of women of colour in the social hierarchy, of females. Gender is ultimately a constellation of norms given to a culture based on biological differences however, are performative expressions dictated and controlled by our conventional norms, thus resulting in conventionalised behaviours. With these two phenomenal beings combined only creates an intersection with the issues of race and gender which political discourses often ignore due to supposed complexities, as well as ignorance on the matter. Generalisations made against women of colour would be intolerable if made against white women, since the fruits of colonialism imposed such power to socially construct race to which we are misrecognised in the European imagination. Thus, in this essay a discussion of why intersectionality is a challenge against a system of categorisation founded in discrimination, will be addressed.

What many fail to acknowledge is the notion that gender is constructed through concepts on race and sexuality in which, “Femininity is the process through which women are gendered and become specific sorts of women” (Skeggs,1997:98) usually associated with white womanhood wherein feminine ideals are constructed against the black female. Thus, the understanding of intersectionality is situated within the essentialist ideas of feminism that holds little significance to women of colour. The feminist movement rarely sheds light on the issues faced by black, Hispanic or Asian women; or even those from a working-class background. “Because women of color experience racism in ways not always the same as those (…) and sexism in ways not always parallel to experiences of white women, dominant conceptions of antiracism and feminism are limited, even on their own terms” (Crenshaw, 1991: 5) A factor in determining these differences is down to varied cultural nurturing which creates the great dilemma in leaving any intersection unaddressed. Yes, all women live under the system of patriarchy but there are many varied discourses that still oppress women, which Crenshaw has brought to light in the study of intersectionality. Essentialism is a key critique as contemporary feminism homogenises female discourses and fails to acknowledge the intersections of race and patriarchy. However, this failure may also be because anti-racism reproduces inequalities since many see the family institution as a protective and supportive force; ignoring the servitude of patriarchy. (Crenshaw, 1991)

Proceeding from such, upbringing needs to be recognised as playing a pivotal role in one’s discourse, one being the concept of patriarchy, particularly sexism, which is arguably normalised within black and Asian households. I have observed my own family’s dynamics and first-hand experienced the reliance on the daughter to look after the house and her siblings, whereas this same responsibility or perhaps burden was not placed on the sons. They are not required to clean up or help the mother, just to do well at school and get a good job to provide for the family. Carby’s (1982) study sees the triple shift unappreciated and expected as the work of women outside and inside the home is not recognised but in relation to intersectionality; the premise of domesticity on the female is poignant in traditional black households whereby it is a custom and a norm. If you do not fulfil this norm, you are undesirable or not marriage material to the other sex, especially one from your own race. Ultimately, this culture of black female domesticity is a construction that few stand up to but is very much acknowledged. Many seem to forget that the concept of gender is inevitably woven with race as well as class however, the movement of feminism does not cater to every woman of every colour then what is perpetuated in this sequence is an erasure of black women from politics undermining its legitimacy as a whole, but strengthens in ignorance. Crenshaw (1991) particularly sees this failure in feminism as reinforcing the subordination of women and men of colour but from other angles associates anti-racism with failing to acknowledge patriarchy, again reproducing the subordination of women. In turn, a vicious cycle is conditioned.

Nonetheless, masculinity is a social construction preserving the subordination of the black males and females culminating to conflict due to cultural standings. The identity of black masculinity in particular has been reduced to the essence of race rather than the realities of their constructed beings or who they are besides the external perceptions hence, is a consequence of a cultural barrier standing in the way of them freeing themselves from abusive relations. Racism prohibits ethnic men but in this context, prevents black men from having the same opportunities to the patriarchal and economic hierarchies of white men, producing a self-fulfilling prophecy. As Mead (1963) concurs, by assuming that you’re immune to social conditioning ultimately means you are a captor, a slave to it.

Coincidingly, manhood is constructed in relation to binary opposites. Just as you cannot have love without hate in this world, masculinity cannot exist without feminine identities being a source of comparison to them. Collins (2004) associates the high divorce of black women down to a gender ideology which connects manhood with financial status, proposing that power equates to a man not a woman; an ideal passed down to black men as a distraction to their systematic oppression. Thus, to ethnic minorities masculinity is ultimately a protection against racist ideals rather than a protection to professed womanhood. A protection from the institutionalised racism that presents themselves to ethnic males constantly, for instance Archer notes that, ‘Muslin males (…) to report suffering from the highest rates of racism at school’. (Archer, 2001: 81) However, it will not be suitable to evaluate how race intersects with gender without delving into the deeper issue which situate themselves under the categories of race and gender. Noticeably, hyper masculinity is a dominant force within the African-Caribbean or Latino households most stereotypically viewed as a resistance to racism although, can be viewed as a source of empowerment due to cultural upbringing. Men whether Latino or black feel the pressure to affirm their masculinity in ways perhaps foreign to them, expressed in the straight-laced documentary. (Chasnoff, 2009) In the context of family, black men would prefer patriarchy but some are too economically disenfranchised to maintain it thus, hyper- masculinity is substituted for the inability to uphold black systematic patriarchy. Black manhood is thus usually reserved for sports or the products associated with the entertainment world. (Gill, 2007) wherein black men are praised and hypocritically appreciated whilst black females are highly eroticised, perpetuating the fabricated racial perceptions of gender and race.

Likewise, black femininity is tainted by the eroticisation of the women. We are either invisible or given hypervisibility, that being overly fetishized and angry; depicting an emphasis on black or ethnic bodies being hypersexual, aggressive or even undesirable. This incorporated with institutionalised inequalities leaves room for one to only critique feminism for its oversight in acknowledging how race and gender intersect or look beyond the white gaze of womanhood. There is no definition for womanhood because every woman is different. What I can see here is the failure of identity politics to transcend difference as race does not have an intrinsic meaning wherein, Sojournet Truth’s (1995) account is a poignant representation of how gender with race conflict. She challenged the essentialist ideals of femininity but also the norm that a woman needs a man to survive. Powerfully, she critiqued the moral inaccuracy of gender and race prejudice, thus rendered is the unfortunate circumstance in embodying two discriminations and how dangerous that can be; a reality still prominent today.

Hence, in relation to Butler’s concept on performativity, gender is not an internal reality but and external imposition: “Gender is, thus a construction that regularly conceals its genesis” (Butler, 1998: 522) She acknowledges that we can never truly determine how an individual is supposed to act as people’s performances change and a new standardised gender norm is created for individuals to believe however, race also conceals its genesis. I see race as a standardised construction which determines male and female performances palpable in the opposition to non- binary relations, and the binary opposites that influence unconventional behaviours. Alternately when intersecting gender and race, women’s rights discourses seem to justify homophobia also and international wars. For instance, feminist movements seeking to free Muslim women from being oppressed still puts white women in the position of being the ‘civilisers’, a hidden agency within their discourse (Carby, 1982) that drives a major debate as to whether it is due to origins of the feminist movement but also their culture and status in society. Retrospectively, under the Jim crow laws black men were prosecuted and lynched for having relations with white women, whilst black women were raped and victimised by white men with little to no justice given. The system has and is still hurting black bodies hence, discussing the insidious matters is much harder but you learn to pick your battles for the fear of being called a bitter black woman obsessed with race. (Yancy, 2008)

This discussion, of course, would be incomplete if the media was not addressed for its structural racism. Their power in ‘othering’ is very problematic and a social construction used to demonise individuals or groups, thus sustaining the process which draws on power relations to frame others. Love and the production of gendered power intersecting with race is maintained by the constant image of black women being physically unattractive. Mass media is vital in dictating gender race discourses but succeeds in driving the ideology that black females are promiscuous, angry and bitter, whilst Asian women are passive and weak. (Collins, 2004)

Colourism is the consequence of this symbolic violence. The Dark Girls (2011) documentary ignites the cultural invasion which has shifted perspective and ideas on beauty, emblematic of an internalised colonialism. This is a global phenomenon seen eminently in the black community perpetuating a division normalised by our past narratives. The approximation with whiteness is valued in which the lighter you are the more desirable, whereas the darker you are the most undesirable, which has no foundation whatsoever. As the documentary highlights, the youth are influenced by the media to devalue their skin and alter their realities, leading to a psychological issue impeding one’s ability to love themselves. Celebrities corroborate this ideal by constantly playing on the divisive nature of colourism through interracial dating being a symbol of ‘progression’ thus, norms of beauty intersect with race as what is defined as beauty is shaped by a colonial personality that promotes products designed to make women meet European standards of beauty e.g. bleaching. (2011) This is a clear example of interpolation, constantly being reminded that you fail to meet beauty’s standard, an inadequacy created by ill-informed perceptions. In accordance, the fetishization and sexualisation of black women in history for instance sarah baartman ignites the inhumane treatment of black people during the 19th century, in which this demonization is what Europeans used to justify their superiority over black bodies to establish their oppression.

Admittedly, what I find interesting about this documentary is the matter that black women are not as fearful to acknowledge their self-loathing like black men whom commonly refuse to address their contempt. Nonetheless, I deem this discussion incomplete if language was not acknowledged as an important factor in influencing gender race discrimination. (Laqueur, 1990) However, it would be wrong to not acknowledge that collectively blacks do not have the same superiority complex in relation to whites. We may attempt to empower ourselves with phrases such as ‘black is beautiful’ in an attempt to counterbalance the damage that has been done to our race and hold anti-white sentiments as a direct result of their oppression since black beauty is compared to white Eurocentric ideas of attraction, but the damage has already been done. Yet again, focusing only on surface level aspects may distract from the larger issues at hand. For too long men and women of colour have been marginalised and subjugated thence, an attempt needs to be made to amplify our voices, our cries and our experiences to culturally and systematically remove gender race prejudice, in the strive for equality and equity.

Throughout this discussion, I have highlighted how intersections between race and gender create a barrier to those who fall under the category. The individuals who contribute to such inequalities need to undergo a process of unlearning to disconnect and remove these hinderances associated with race and gender. What many fail to acknowledge that this discussion is not primarily about adding race and gender together but that the embodiment of both creates traffic and barriers not recognised by many groups that promotes gender liberation. Most movements are susceptible to subordinating other groups due to this ignorance but in this essay, I sought to focalise these hidden agencies not for the education of others but also myself so that I will become more aware of my own ignorance. Being a woman is already a censor. Being a woman and black is a double censor, thus to be both is what I call resilience. A very existence which remains defiant.

Gender has always been a highly debated one, even now in our society. In the early years, it was considered unlawful or a sin if one gender decided to act or become, in a way, the other gender. Even in some cultures, acts like these were crimes against nature and could have been punishable by death. To this day, many people still see the same way and have the same feelings towards homosexuality and many are not accepting to the way things are now. Even though people are now trying to cope and cooperate with these ways, it still may take a long while for people to still accept these values and different views on gender. Based on the recent facts, data, and the basic human biology standards, it is proven that there are only two biological genders, but many different gender identities.

In the old days, sex has always been identified by two genders: male and female. For years, this belief that there were only two genders has been taught to us for many generations because it was a simple standard to live by. Basic biology even states that there are only two genders, because only these two genders can reproduce and have offspring together. Even religion (Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, etc.) has taught and told us that only man and woman shall be together and love each other. People have just been following what someone has said for many years and lived by it believing it was true. But with the recent studies of gender and the constantly changing of facts, scientists now believe that there could be more than just 2 genders.

The people, in our society, should take note that there is a difference between identity and sex because sex is not gender. Most people refer sex when they talk about the reproductive organs and it is defined for us at birth for when someone sees our genitals and says “This is a male” or “This is a female”.This is how science works and is the fact of life. Gender is more than just looking at a person’s genitals and saying that they are a man or a woman. A woman will be provided, by nature, necessities to survive that men do not have or need because it is biologically impossible. There are things though that are built on practice.

A common practice in our society would be how the woman in the family would have to stay home, take care of the kids, and keep the house together while the man would go out and get a job, earn money, and provide for his family. This is a common practice that society has taught us for many years and generations. When people are born, they do not realize what role they fit into in the environment and society until society tell us, or when they feel accepted to the culture of the people.

Gender does have a spectrum with many different possibilities. A straight man, is biologically male, attracted to women, and acts on roles that society placed on him. A straight man can though take part on traits that are “non-masculine”, such as being emotional, loving and compassionate, plays with dolls, etc. He is still a man, his gender is still male but he chooses to act on something that is against society and the roles placed on him. A gay man, is also biologically a male, attracted to men, and still acts on roles that have been placed on him by society but he may partake to do feminine things while also still doing traditionally male things.

Many people though still claim that anyone who is a gender that is not male or female are pretty much mentally insane. They think they are just refusing science and their own bodies. This, however, is not true because there are more than two genders. These people are not blocking out science in any way, but rather they are avoiding the expectations set on men and women and have decided to set up there own identities which they see fit in the world.

It is now time for our society to change and acknowledge the fact that there are more than two genders. The people cannot still use the same teaching and belief and the basic terms of science to argue that these people don’t exist. Even if it takes many years for everyone to finally be part together and part of something in this society, we need to understand who these people are. The people need to stop believing the same phony, basic, scientific truth that there are only two genders. These people exist and everyone needs to acknowledge that before we keep destroying and dehumanizing everyone.

Sexuality is a topic that cannot be discussed and understand openly sometimes, but it is very important for human being to understand what sexuality and the importance of sexuality for our life is. When I was in high school, I first attended to psychology lecture. I heard some interesting and attractive historical psychology theories, like Freud’s psychosexual theory. Then I had a crush on psychology. However, sometimes, I felt shame when people talk about human sexuality. When I was looking through the catalogs, I found that there is a chapter talking about sexuality. Thus, I chose to explore this interesting and a little bit embarrassing topic.

After reading this article, I learned that sexuality is a significant driver of every human being. It drives people’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior. On the other hand, we can say that to some degree, sexuality made us who we are today. Thus, a deep understanding of human sexuality is crucial for everyone. I learned the differences between sex and gender as well. Sex is described as a means of reproduction biologically. Gender is a term that describes a person’s psychological and sociological representations of biological sex, however. Before this, I could not distinguish the differences between sex and gender. Also, I learned something about sexual orientation.

Even though sexual fluidity always happens to a person, sexual orientation is relatively stable and genetically rooted, which means that a person’s sexual orientation has a tiny chance to change over his or her lifespan. And sexual orientation does not only occur in the human’s world but also occurs throughout the animal kingdom. There are two interesting and impressive data in this article. One is that there are more than 500 animal species have homosexual or bisexual orientations around the world. Another one is that more than 65,000 animal species are intersex. This one really impressed me a lot. I never imagined that there are so many animals that born with either an absence or some combination of male and female reproductive organs. Also, I learned something about sexual behaviors.

Before reading this article, I only knew coital sex which is the term for vaginal-penile intercourse. However, I had a confusion about some other sexual behaviors, like oral sex and anal sex. I did not know if they are sexual behaviors or they are not. After reading this article, I found that they are sexual behaviors and there are more other sexual behaviors that people are not familiar with, such as voyeurism, exhibitionism, and pedophilia. These sexual behaviors are classified in the DSM as paraphilic disorders, behaviors that cause harm to other people or him or herself. Sadism and masochism are also classified in the DSM as paraphilic disorders. Actually, I saw these words before, but I did not know they are sexual behaviors. I thought these actions were bad special oddities. I did not know what paraphilic disorders means as well. I think another important thing of this article is to tell people that when we engage in sexual activity, we should protect ourselves and our partners. We should understand what we want and what our partners want. All the above are what I learned from this article.

In short, human sexuality is an important part of our life. Open discussion about sexuality can help people to get a better understanding of themselves and others. However, there is still something we could and we should explore in the area of psychology of human sexuality.

Teachers can have a large impact on the development of a child by helping students succeed in whatever they may want to do in life. They are there to make a difference in the way that children see the world around them. Positive relationships between student and teacher help guide students on how to become a successful adult in their personal and professional lives. The best teachers are committed to their students both in the classroom and out in society once they leave school. Important life lessons can be taught that can help them succeed not only on tests but in the world after graduating.

Great teachers know that it is not easy to change another person’s life, but they always strive to make an impact. A great teacher makes learning entertaining, stimulating, by teaching lessons that go beyond mere algebra problems. Some students labelled as “troubled” are more engaged if a teacher can make even the dullest of topics seem interesting. One of the hardest things to do as a teacher is to motivate students to try and become better versions of who they are. Teachers are there to inspire students to work harder and work toward a goal. By doing this, the teacher is encouraging them to reach for the stars. Inspiration could mean helping a student through the school year to reach the goal of graduating. This will help them get into a good college, get great career, and be a successful and important part of future generations. Many times, the inspiration that was given will be remembered for a lifetime and they will be able to tell people about that one teacher that helped them to graduate when they did not think they could.

On the other side, negative attitudes can leave a negative impact from teacher to student. The negative impacts can include reduced literacy, and both psychological and physical impacts. Teachers’ attitudes can be both helpful and hurtful to the well-being of a student. In a relatively recent study, middle school and high school teachers were survey to see how much time they spent teaching literacy in their classes. These teachers who did not want to take class time to focus on literacy related to their subjects. The study showed that when a teacher’s attitude toward a topic is more focused the students will do better as they move through to high school (McCoss-Yergian, 2011). Negative attitudes can lead to psychological disorders and cause unneeded stress while the student is trying to learn. Some teachers will use sarcasm and humiliation, leaving a student to feel like they do not matter which can lead to more serious negative impacts later in life.

Sex education laws can vary from state to state. Each state has its own requirements on how to teach the course in schools. Human sexuality course taught at schools can be a helpful and useful course to introduce students to questions about human reproduction, sexual anatomy, conception, prenatal development, pregnancy and childbirth, gender identity and gender roles, sexual arousal, sexual orientation, contraception and abortion, and many more topics. By learning about these things, it can potentially reduce social problems related to sexually transmitted infections, teenage pregnancy, and foster more understanding and acceptance of other sexual practices and preferences. While all these topics may sound great to be able to learn more about, some teachers and professors take things too far when teaching this course. Were proper officials at the school made aware of the content being taught and how it was being taught? For grade school children, were the parents and students informed about the content of the class before the class started. Were there warnings about graphics materials being shown in class before they were shown? This and many other questions need to be asked before so that no one is surprised or offended by the content. This paper will discuss when is the line crossed from appropriate behavior to inappropriate for teachers and professors. Human sexuality courses can create debates about what is acceptable to teach and when teachers cross the line into inappropriate behavior.

Since 1940, when sex education was first advocated by the U.S. Public Heath Service until today there have been much support for sex education in schools. Many believe that it is important for young people to receive education about sexual topics, like contraception, puberty, and health relationships. In the 1950s and 1960s, the focus of these classes leaned toward the family dynamic and the anatomy of the body. Over time the focus has shifted to prevention of early pregnancy and STIs and STDs (Finkel, M.L., & Finkel, S., 1985). As the things taught in human sexuality classes have changed so has the ways that teachers are teaching the material.

A professor at Northwestern University set up a live sex demonstration for his human sexuality class. Professor John Michael Bailey invited his students for an optional, non-graded demo where a woman, who was not a student, stimulated the act of sexual intercourse with a motorized sex toy. The topic was related to the kinks and fetishes section of their course. Over 100 students watched the live sex act take place. The woman got on stage and laid down. Her husband then proceeded to use a motorized sex toy to make the woman have an orgasm.

Bailey had apologized to the people that were offended by the demonstration. He had admitted that the demonstration was unplanned and last minute and that he should not have allowed it and said it would never happen again. Bailey still defended himself say that the demonstration was related to the topic they were talking about in class which was kinks and fetishes. He said that no laws were broken and that every student that watched did it at their own free will. He believed that the demonstration had educational value because it taught students about sexual arousal and sexual diversity (Kempner, 2012).

There was another situation that happened at a community college in Nevada. A student sued the school say that her professor for a human sexuality class created a “sexually hostile class environment.” There was an assignment called, “A Sexual Case Study…You!” that wanted students to give person information about past sexual abuse, homosexual behavior, and sexual preferences. The student had experienced abuse as a child and was uncomfortable and discussing this for a college course (Young, 2012). The lawsuit was withdrawn shortly after the class began. The professor had all the students sign waivers because of the graphic nature of the class and that sexually explicit language was going to be used in the class and that the class was an elective class.

It is important for any professor to warn students if the information being taught in the classroom could possibly be offensive or cause discomfort and the students should be told they can get up and leave the classroom without recourse if needed. However, at Appalachian State University in North Carolina, two professors were criticized for showing what many thought borderlines pornography. Some sexually explicit materials can be used in classroom related to human sexuality, but the professors need to make sure that students are informed in advance of the graphic nature of the material so the can have the option to leave the class once the discussion begins. Jammie Price was a tenured professor at the university. She was suspended for showing pornography in her sociology class without letting students know beforehand. She claimed that her right for free speech should extend to her classroom. She said that video, “The Price of Pleasure: Pornography, Sexuality and Relationships,” was graphic at times but was relevant to the topic of the class that day, gender and sexuality (Smith, 2012).

Teachers can have a negative impact of a students’ psychological wellbeing. A study done by Florin Sava (2001), showed a teacher use of humiliation, fear, and intimidation can cause students to be shy and withdrawn. Also, it can create anxiety. These feelings can then change into isolation and stress. These symptoms resemble someone who has post-traumatic stress disorder. The younger that the negative attitudes are introduced, the more likely they will carry into high school and then to adulthood. As for anxiety, these can lead to physical problems like muscle aches, lack of energy, neck tension, and stomach issues. This can also cause a student to be unfocused on their school work because they are in pain. Sometimes this could lead to further negative attitudes from the teacher.

A trigger is a reminder of something bad that has happened in the past. There are different things that can set off triggers like smell, sound, or seeing something that reminds them of the past stimulus (Schmitt, 2015). This also can be described as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These things can make a person feel overwhelmed with sadness, panic, or anxiety. This could also create flashbacks, which a detailed account of the memory that is often negative (Schmitt, 2015). During the flashback someone will lose track of what is going on around them and relive the event.

Human sexuality courses cover a lot of different topics that could set up a multitude of emotional triggers. Different people may have different triggers for different topics, but it should be the job of the professor to make that know to the class before topics are discussed. There should always be open and honest and respectful conversation. However, if a topic is discussed that the student has sensitivities with, then they should have the right not to be pressured by the teacher to give an answer. Students should also be allowed to leave the classroom without question if a topic being discussed is to much for one to handle.

Some of the topics that are discussed in a human sexuality class can set off triggers, such as rape, sexual abuse, abortion, infertility, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), sexual dysfunction, sexual orientation, and religion as it pertains to sexuality. One or more of these topics could create a negative memory that could lead to a flashback.

In this paper, I have discussed what should be considered acceptable to teach and when it crosses the line into improper. Personally, I have had some similar things happen to me while taking the same class at the University of Baltimore. Before my semester started my girlfriend and I were talking about the classes I had picked for the upcoming Fall 2019 semester. I told her that I was taking Human Sexuality. When she was in college, she had taken the same class at Penn State and said it was probably one of the best classes she ever took and that she was excited for me to take the class. This made me excited to take the class myself. However, on the first day of class the first of many inappropriate situations started occurring. The first assignment that we did was an introduction about us. We were to say our name, why we were in college, why we decided to take Human Sexuality, and our first sexually related memory. A lot people around the class talked about the first time they had sex or the first time they realized they had sexual feelings. Personally, I had talked about my first kiss. There were two Muslim students that were sitting next to me toward the front of the classroom. Topics of sex, gender, and sexuality are topics that are sensitive to a lot of Muslims. When it came around for them to answer the question, they got through the first three parts of the question but did not want to answer the last part about the first sexually related memory. Our professor then tried to encourage them to give an answer but when there was nothing said the professor continued to press the students to give an answer. Of course, this class will be uncomfortable for some because of the sensitive nature of some of the topics being discussed but it is insensitive and inappropriate to continue to push a student to answer a question that they are clearly uncomfortable answering. During another lecture about love and sexual attraction, there was some very candied discussion about how to please your partner sexually. The professor was talking about giving and making gestures about preforming fellatio. The professor then directed the discussion to a heterosexual male student and asked him, “You know how to do that right?” Discussing that topic alone can be uncomfortable for many to talk about in public but when the question in directed to a particular person it can make an uncomfortable situation worse. To me profanity has no place in a classroom. However, some professors in college may drop the occasional S bomb or F bomb in class and that can be accepted to a certain point. However, when these words become more fulgor and derogatory it can cross into a place that is unprofessional and unwarranted. Also, gestures of the sexual nature like thrusting movements with the hips and of the act of grabbed an imaginary penis and putting it up to your mouth while you push your cheek out from the inside of your mouth with your tongue. Every class seemed to have something that was inappropriate or uncalled for. There were students in the class who did not mind the unfortunate behavior but there were many who thought that the lude acts had no place in the classroom.

Teaching human sexuality can have its challenges for any teacher. Teachers want to teach the information in a fun and interesting ways, but some go to far to make that point.

References

1. Finkel, M. L., & Finkel, S. (1985). Sex Education in High School. Society, 23(1), 48–52.
2. Kempner, Martha. (2012, July 5). How Far is Too Far in a College Sexuality Course? Retrieved from https://rewire.news/article/2012/07/05/how-far-is-too-far-in-college-sexuality-course/.
3. McCoss-Yergian, Tanya & Krepps, Loddie (2010). Do Teacher Attitudes Impact Literacy Strategy Implementation in Content Area Classrooms? Journal of Instructional Pedagogies, Vol. 4, Oct 2010.
4. Sava, Florin A., (2001). Causes and effects of teacher conflict-inducing attitudes toward pupils: a path analysis model. Teaching and Teacher Education 18 (2002) pg. 1007-1021.
5. Schmitt, David P. (2015, Oct 8). Trigger Warning and Human Sexuality Education. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-personalities/201510/trigger-warnings-and-human-sexuality-education.
6. Smith, Mitch. (2012, April 23). When Can Faculty Show Porn? Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/23/professors-criticized-after-showing-sexually-explicit-videos-class.
7. Young, Elise. (2012, July 2). Sex and the Classroom. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/07/02/nevada-student-files-lawsuit-about-explicitly-sexual-class-assignments.

Today sports and the world of sports is somewhat of a religion. People watch sports and go to games more than they go to church, temple, mosque, synagogue, etc. Sports is the foundation of many conversations and helps society grow. The media when it comes to sports is one of the main factors that helps society grow both negatively and/or positively. Although sports make the society grow as one it also creates a divide when it comes to gender because of bias and stereotypes portrayed for each gender. Throughout the different sports industries, we have seen stereotypes play a role in the way players have been treated, talked about, and the different expectations put upon them. While looking at the variety of sports that are played it has become painfully obvious that gender creates a separation between the players and viewers. Overall, gender plays a role in the way athletes are talked in terms of gender; how the media portrays the female and male players in the sports industry, how marketing focuses on the gender more than the actual sport, how gender stereotypes are a big reason why co-ed sports are rare, and obviously how the pay gap is still prevalent today. While we see all of the different ways gender affects the sports world, we also see how it can affect the person as an individual.

Gender plays a large role in how athletes are talked to by the media, how they are asked what is important to them and how they are perceived. A key example is Serena Williams and Rafael Nadal and how reporters focus on different things even though they win the same position. The main theories and ideologies that support the way social inequality is shown in the sporting world are functionalism and mass medias gender constructions. The social theory of functionalism plays a massive role in how women are seen and portrayed in sports media. Functionalism is the idea that females give birth and nurse infants and have a responsibility to them and their families. The theory itself focuses on women’s roles and how they should behave in public in regard to their responsibilities to their families. Functionalism causes society to create stereotypes about women in terms of what women should and should not do. Due to this theory, women are thought to be more involved in domestic activities and are looked down upon when they detach themselves from the functionalist ideology. This specific theory plays a role in how women are questioned in interviews after their games and how the media portrays women in the sports industry. The main example in the sports industry is Serena Williams. Serena Williams has been subjected to many different circumstances due to society’s depiction of gender and what each gender should do. Along with functionalism the feminist theory also plays a massive role in the way our society treats women in the sports world. Even though we would like to believe that we are an equal society when it comes to gender the feminist theory proves us wrong. The feminist theory revolves around the ideas of society being unequal in terms of gender. It strives to understand gender inequality while examining the different aspects of a woman and man’s social roles. The theory itself is shown in the sports industry through media and the gender constructions they create, the interviews each gender partakes in, and also through marketing. These three different aspects show how society has categorized male and female athletes and how it creates inequality within the sports industry.

The first idea is mass media and the gender constructions they create and follow, because of the stereotypes that have plagued our society in terms of gender, media and society has started conforming to the stereotypes regarding gender. Media creates a stereotype of women during their commentary in the interviews and television shows: “In America 40% of sportspeople are women, however only 6-8% of the total sports media coverage is devoted to them. And women-only sports stories add up to just 3.5%of all sports stories in the four major US newspapers” (Pavlovich). Even with less airtime media mainly focuses on women’s domestic life, appearance and behaviors instead of what is actually happening in the sport. “Commentary during a women’s sports event will still occasionally focus on the physical attractiveness of the performers, their fashionable attire, their grooming or their cute personality traits (Sage, Eitzen, page 163). Every woman in the sports world is asked the same thing thus creating an unintentional base of gender discrimination. One of the main athletes that is discriminated against due to gender bias in media is thirty-nine times Grand Slam winner Serena Williams. Even with the numerous accomplishments under her belt and all the hard work she has put into her career she is still questioned by the media about why she is not smiling, why she is still playing even if she has a baby at home, who she is wearing, what her husband thinks about her playing, and other questions about her personal life. With media focusing on these topics instead of their careers they are creating the gender bias for other women who are playing in the sports world and also people who are watching the interviews.

When being interviewed women are asked questions that usually revolve around the ideas of their domestic lives or their appearance. During these interviews’ women are rarely asked about the sport they play or what they are trying to achieve. For women, the main question is why you are not smiling or questioning their reasoning for playing when they have a spouse and kids at home. Although female athletes always get these questions, their male counterparts never get asked the same questions instead they get questions about their professional life without crossing the boundaries of their personal lives. “Historically, women were perceived to be too frail or weak for various physical activities, and athletic activities were thought to be particularly harmful to their reproductive health” (Taniguchi 66). This old thinking causes society to create stereotypes about women being weak and frail and may also create the idea that women’s appearance and domestic life is superior to their career. The women who do leave the gender norms and participate in the sports industry tend to be asked about their personal lives and how they can juggle both personal and professional lives. With the media asking questions that revolve around the female athletes’ domestic lives they breach the privacy of these athletes who are trying to do their job. With the idea of functionalism, the family is not the only thing that is talked about but also their behaviors and appearances. Not every interviewer will ask about a women’s behavior or appearance, sometimes they will ask about both career and domestic life in order to create balance within the interview. Men, on the other hand, tend not to be asked much about their domestic lives, behaviors or appearances. They will mainly be asked about their future plans and how they feel about their profession and winning or losing. The key example once again is Serena Williams and the way she was treated during her interviews. In a recent interview with Serena Williams after a match where she beat her sister, Venus Williams, an interviewer asked a question which was ‘why are you not smiling’. After this question Serena responded as honestly, I do not want to be here which elicited many chuckles across the group. Although this question was seen as a joke because of the sharp and witty response given back, it also shows how interviews are more sexist and tend to ask more behavioral questions then career-based questions.

Not only do female athletes get ostracized for choosing their careers over their families, the media also body-shamed athletes. “Women who subvert to gender norms – by developing and displaying an athleticized, muscular body – are often ridiculed as not ‘proper’ women.” (Speer 109) This is extremely disgusting because a woman who is trying her best to be a great athlete and is working really hard is being ridiculed when she should be encouraged and cheered on. In terms of sports and media portrayal of women’s body image Serena Williams is the key example of how media ridicules women due to their masculine body. Serena is often ridiculed because of her big built, thick calves, and massive arms during interviews on sports channels. Media is causing these amazing women to be discussed in negative terms because of the image media and society has created for women. Due to the different negative stereotypes of women in sports caused by media our society has been plagued by these negative stereotypes and has affected women around the world. Many women and girls shy away from playing sports professionally because of the way the media portrays them. This is causing women to not pursue their dreams in order to conform to the gender constructions that the media has placed upon them.

Along with interviews, marketing also plays a role in the way media adheres to the world of gender constructions. With the idea of functionalism already circulating in society, marketing also adds on to gender discrimination. When marketing the media focuses on portraying women as either docile or feminine instead of focusing on the sport the athlete is a part of. When marketing women, the media tends to focus on the way they are posed and what they are wearing instead of what they are endorsing whereas men are posed with the equipment of the sport they are endorsing. The media focuses on the way a woman looks and if she is pleasing to look at in the eyes of society, basically an oversexualized version of that athlete. “It is clear that sports-based magazines routinely focus on the athletic exploits of male athletes while offering hyper-sexualized images of their female counterparts” (St. Hilaire 4). According to society women are to be seen as sexy and beautiful which leads to the marketing tactic of portraying women in skimpy clothing and in seductive poses, with a ton of makeup and heavy photoshop. This marketing tactic causes society to approve of the women in sports based on the idea of functionalism. Functionalism plays a role in all of the marketing tactics because the idea of women being domestic and dainty instead of being powerful and strong… what society deems appropriate. While women are displayed as sexy and beautiful, men, on the other hand, are poised in suits and sports equipment and are portrayed as powerful winners. The men also conform to society’s vision since men are seen as powerful and dominating. With the media displaying men in suits and dominating positions, they encourage societies view of women and men in different positions in relation to success. The media basically aims to please and conform to the societal stereotypes for both men and women. Not only do women get sexualized when getting marketed they don’t get marketed enough. Men’s sports team tend to be marketed much more which helps to raise more money for the team itself while the women’s sports teams do not get the opportunity to raise the money they need because of lack of marketing. The main example of this inequality is the women’s soccer team. The women are not able to capitalize on their talent because of a lack of foundation that marketing would create. Overall the marketing aspect and the sports industry values the males more than females in terms of professionalism and equality. This just goes to show how women in the sports industry are looked upon as second class citizens and that they are viewed nowhere near their male counterparts when it comes to effort, dedication or success. Furthermore, media depicts the athletes based on their gender and societies expectations; we see that women are viewed as less equal to men and that men are seen as dominating and powerful when compared to women.

Due to these different constructs within the sports world and media, women are seen as less professional compared to men in the same position. “…Female athletes are still considered inferior to male athletes and that compared to male athletes there is still an obsession with the body of female athletes rather than on her athletic skills” (Trolan 215). With the idea of functionalism already being a part of our society, we have made it a gender norm to see women as dainty instead of powerful while the men are portrayed as powerful and strong. The interviews that take place in the sports industry also follow this theory of functionalism and the visual media is not far behind. Along with the theory of functionalism the feminist ideology also plays a massive roll in the display of gender in the sports community. We see the inequality within the media, interviews and marketing tactics and this inequality is given through society and also is impacting the future generations ahead of us. Inequality is shown in the way society talks about men and women in different ways and how they are portrayed in the media. The feminist theory comes to life in the sports industry because of seeing the different roles as stereotypes that are put on to the different genders. This specific mentality has been integrated into our culture for many generations, the culture stereotypes women to being weak and fragile and less than men.

Co-ed sports is a topic that has a lot to do with gender discrimination. Now co-ed sports teams are very rare and even if they exist very often the ration of male to female is highly unproportioned. The reason why co-ed sports don’t really exist as much is because, not only male athletes, but society sees female athletes as not good enough or strong enough to play with male athletes. This is very unfortunate because I really do feel that female athletes are just as good as male athletes, at times even better than them. And when female athletes on the off chance do play in co-ed sports they play only because, “the sports that accept female participation are those that permit female athletes to uphold typical feminine characteristics and allow them to be portrayed as beautiful and appealing based on societal standards” (Morales 3). This just goes to show that even sports are strongly impacted by gender roles. Although a lot has been done to equalize the male and female teams, gender roles are still prevalent and even effect co-ed sports teams.

Another area of inequality when it comes to gender discrimination and the difference between male and female athletes is pay. Of course, just like in every other job and career out there, women are affected in the sports industry more. Maybe because of the way men’s sports is so hyped up that they end up making substantially more than their female counterparts, but in what way is this fair. If a person puts in the same amount of work and effort as another, no matter the gender, then they should make the same amount. This is even more unfortunate when it comes to prize money. Female athletes are often given less prize money than male athletes. When an individual works hard, so hard that they win, they shouldn’t be deprived of their right just because they are a woman. What is really bothersome is that these athletes are working just as hard as male athletes and at times even more than them, but are being told that they aren’t worth the same as male athletes and all the work they do to do well in their careers is not important if they aren’t men.

Female athletes are proving our society wrong time and time again, although they’re playing and fighting for what they believe in, our society needs to change their mindset. We are still incredibly behind in creating equality between men and women but if we raise a voice and take a stand then there is still a possibility of creating change. While social constructs are changing and women empowerment is a sort of social movement so many are a part of and adhere to the principals of, especially in the context of media, we are still very behind when it comes to female equality and this is very imminent in the world of sports. It is frightening to see inequalities in sports because, although I am hopeful that it will get better, the way generations to come are affected is still unknown. I just hope that girls will still participate in sports.

Works cited

1. Eitzen, Stanley, and George Harvey. Sage. Sociology of North American Sport. Brown & Benchmark, 1993.
2. Morales, Madison, and Lindemann, Kurt. A Level Playing Field? Gender Communication in Co-ed Recreational Soccer (2015): ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Web.
3. Speer, Susan A. ‘Sports Media and Gender Inequality.’ Body & Society 7.1 (2001): 109-14. Web.
4. St. Hilaire, Kristin, Kreiger, Tyson, and Wise, Sharon. Gender Bias in College Athletics Post Title IX (2016): ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Web.
5. Taniguchi, Hiromi, and Frances L. Shupe. ‘Gender and Family Status Differences in Leisure-time Sports/fitness Participation.’ International Review For The Sociology Of Sport 49.1 (2014): 65-84. Web.
6. Trolan, Eoin J. ‘The Impact of the Media on Gender Inequality within Sport.’ Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 91.C (2013): 215-27. Web.

Gender socialization starts when you are first born and intensifies as one reaches adolescence contributing to gender inequalities in education, employment, empowerment, and other related issues. Gender socialization gives more information on the behaviors associated with specific sex during the development stage of a child and hence setting norm which should be adhered to by a particular gender. In the current world, it is believed that gender expression variations are credited to modifications in socialization instead of genetic makeup and therefore boys and girls are supposed to act in a specific manner since their tender age. Individuals have become socialized into considering gender as masculine-feminine binary; in some instances, individuals gender identity nay not align with assigned gender role. According to sociologists, the process of socialization involves transferring norms, behaviors, beliefs, and values and this consists of cultural practices governing a particular group and complying with social norms through education and instruction. Understanding gender socialization brings together essential historical concepts and shifts person behavior when interacting with society, i.e., political and cultural structures. Gender awareness together with exposure to gender from various resources of socialization impacts children’s attitudes. For example, some children may favor their own identity and therefore end up showing discriminatory behaviors. Gender socialization is important in people’s growth cycle and gives more insight on what to expect in the future by how individuals behave, interacts and views themselves within the society.

As a child, my gender identity was brought to my attention, and I was heightened to the information concerning the people to interact with. My parents always exposed me to multiple sources that made me realize it was bad to spend much time with girls and playing their games. Since making a decision on who to play with was a challenge, my parents ensured that I mingled with their friends’ children that provided me with opportunities to play in a mix-gender group to develop positive interpersonal relationships with both boys and girls. Since gender is one of the most essential aspects to be aware of, by the age of five, I was more aware of my identity and hence began learning cultural gender stereotypes, i.e., how to behave like a man and engage in activities that most boy children engage (Mills, 2000). I was more able to note what was appropriate and inappropriate for both genders and adopt behavior in accordance to my gender.

Due to increase in gender egalitarian attitudes within the society, my parents provided me with first lessons and guidelines about gender, and like many other parents, fathers are more expectant to regard their traits, activities, and abilities to their children, I was able to consider my gender status. This gave me the opportunity to hang out with my father occasionally and know what was desired of me from society, i.e., caring for the females and young ones more. This involved the provision of toys that described my gender patterns and socializing mote with other boys in activities such as football and other games (Mills, 2000). Considering how I was dressed; it came to my realization that I was different from my mother and thus reinforcing my gender roles. Also Interacting with my peers socialized me to my identity and therefore leading to my adoption of different behaviors rather than that of girls.

Education institutions are essential in establishing gender socialization; similarly, to parents, teachers have higher expectations for different genders. Since boys and girls have different roles when it comes to specific activities, we were used to being grouped when it came to performing particular duties (Stockard, 2006). Morally boys are believed to excel more in fields such as math and science, the teacher always encouraged me that in the future I should pursue engineering course or computer science. Also, this meant me being involved in more challenging tasks and exempting girls in such activities. Although girls participated in particular sports activities that we also did, I noticed their turnout was low and hence making me assume that this meant we differed to a certain degree.

According to religious beliefs, humans should act in a specific way, for example, most of the leaders in the Catholic church are men, and therefore some teachings stress on the issue such as the role of men or female. This involves reading bible stories that involve mainly men who are seen as a role model through their endurance and thus stressing more on our identity (Stockard, 2006). Church has enabled me to come into recognition whom l was and know the difference between genders by a trending Junior teachings.

Knowing proper gender role behavior helps one to differentiate on the roles and giving expectations that determine sociological imagination that guides intellectual concerns. This enables people to fulfill the promise of social science and focus on structural and psychological build up that determine one’s behavior which affects values and character (Stockard, 2006). Since gender role defines appropriate behavior in children, this gives desire and ambition to explore their identity and engage in activities that fit their capability. Therefore, gender identity gives personal conception that defines outward manifestations of personality in terms of behavior, dressing and mannerisms.

Since gender norms are important in internal gender socialization, that is defined by standards and expectations to which men and women conform and hence defining a particular culture. Violation of these norms can result in society taking action against such Individuals such as imprisonment. Violation of these gender norms means forcing a kid to be who she or he is not and since this alters their overall behavior, and hence resulting to negative impacts where a child may feel like an outcast, society can take action of reporting the case to human rights organizations (Mills, 2000). Society may choose to isolate such individuals from the community and consider them as an outcast and may create awareness within the society by addressing the issue and asking children undergoing such experiences to seek help from organizations.

Gender socialization allows us to adhere to particular gender through behavioral adoption and hence come into a full realization of what we desire to be in life by the way we perceive others. Because many behavioral differences are attributed to socializing with individuals, people can comply with social norms and pre pare them for future endeavors (Stockard, 2006). Therefore, giving individual identity by considering how deeply our internal and personal experience feels and, in the process, corresponding to a person’s sense of the body. This helps to establish healthy sexuality and determine the choice that people make in their adolescence and adulthood.

References

1. Mills, C. W (2000). The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press.
2. Stockard, J. (2006) Gender socialization. Handbook of the Sociology of Gender (p. 215-227). Springer, Boston, MA.
3. Conley, D. (2017). You May Ask Yourself: An Introduction to Thinking like a Sociologist (Fifth ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.