Gender Anthropology

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Perspectives to gender
Evidence that gender is a product of nature and culture
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Biology explains the differences between men and women through their sex (biological classification). This is usually possible as women and men have different sexual organs and the disparity in the sexual organs of men and women explains the differences in both sexes. There are also individuals who have both the male and the female sex organs and they are referred to as hermaphrodites as they are neither males nor females. They usually possess a combination of both female and male traits even in their day to day lives.

Culture tries to explain what it really means to be a woman or a man in a certain community since different communities have different cultures. The term gender has been coined up over time to try and explain culturally constructed roles of women and men in a certain community. The presence of infants further contradicts the explanation of what gender is as children also have roles they are supposed to play in the society.

Gender is dynamic and varies across different cultures of human societies. All these descriptions of what it means to be a woman or a man in a certain specific society changes over time and interactions with the environment are very important in this process, as right from childhood through middle age up to old age, gender roles keep on changing (Brettell & Sargent, 2009).

Perspectives to gender

The exponential growth in technology leading to globalization has helped in exposing a bigger platform for the discussion of the critical factors that explain masculinity or femininity of individuals in the society, whether they are products of nature or culture. This has been possible as globalization has exposed diverse cultures to each other thus enabling cultural interactions beyond territorial borders.

In most of the developed societies, they attribute sex to either masculinity or femininity thus, they have constructed societal expectations of either a woman or a man mostly based on the tasks, duties and responsibilities expected of them to perform in that specific society, which is usually guided by the culture of that society.

Despite this assertion, there has been a variation of masculine and feminine traits across cultures in different parts of the world. Infants at their tender age do not have expected cultural roles despite them either being males or females though they acquire them as they graduate from boyhood to manhood and as girls graduate to womanhood. Infants are not able to depict their masculinity or femininity; rather, they seem neutral individuals in the society (Counihan, 1999).

The reliance of kids at early age to their parents, their optical, social capabilities and activity level cannot be adequately used in distinguishing their masculinity or femininity. Rather, these characteristics become more manifested in later development stages of life, thus indicating the important role the environment plays in shaping and defining masculinity or femininity of an individual in a society.

If the biological sex of an individual determines their gender, then, it could be a very big distinction between infants of either sex. However, this is not the case as toddlers do not depict knowledge of whether they should be masculine or feminine. More so, there is no biological reason or structural evidence as to why they should be so.

The terms sex and gender have been used as if they are synonyms despite there being a very big distinction between the two terms. Sex is the biological classification of a man or a woman whereas gender is the societal and cultural constructions of what it means to be a woman or a man in the community or society in question.

Sex is a natural construction of individuals being of either male or female sex whereas gender is cultural construction of masculinity or femininity (Brettell & Sargent, 2009), thus, the term gender is a product of culture and not of nature.

Evidence that gender is a product of nature and culture

In trying to show that gender is a cultural construction and that it is dynamic, Brettell and Sargent (2009) explored the situation in the United States of America and discovered that for a long time, it was taken that men were equal to masculinity and that women were equal to femininity.

Women were considered to be the weaker sex that required protection from men. This made women to be kept away from combat as they were also considered to be sources of human reproduction that is critical for the survival of society. Women were viewed as symbols of femininity and childbearing.

Human females are naturally expected to be the child bearers and care takers. However, this assertion has generated criticisms from scholars in the contemporary times who challenge its validity. The task of cooking and food preparation has also been taken to be a feminine task and thus, more often than not assigned to women while men are taken or considered to be the caretakers of their families in terms of them being their families’ breadwinners.

On the other hand, men are thought to be more rational, critical thinkers and independent beings, capable of undertaking their activities without reliance on anyone.

They are thought to be stronger and better than women both bodily and in their intellect. They are not expected to be hyper active in household chores such as bringing up of the children. As such, the parenting roles of men should be distinguished from those of women.

The division and specialization of labor for men and women traditionally is done such that women engage in unpaid household chores while men take up the paid up work.

Mothers are presumed to be the home laborers while husbands are expected to provide for the household through paid labor performed in the labor market. The roles and expectations that are linked with these discrepancies assist in construction and definition of gender roles despite the contemporary state of employment of both men and women outside their households.

In trying to prove that nature has an upper hand in definition of a man and that of a woman, Brettell and Sargent (2009) terms gender roles for women and men as natural behaviors. In explaining why women ought not to be involved in combat, they argue that “women don’t have the physical and psychological strength” (p.89). They also add that women’s potential for conceiving and child bearing and consequent rearing makes them unfit for involvement in combat.

The reasons given by the United States for barring women from taking up combat positions seems to point out a product of culture and socialization rather than biology. The assertion that men are more aggressive than women has no or has little evidence to support it hence its validity is usually put to question or debated mostly in developed societies which are more liberal in their view of life and its issues.

The conception that women are deficient of the preferred extent of aggression seems to be a justification used/employed by the society as a whole to differentiate the roles and responsibilities of women and men (Counihan, 1999).

On the other hand, if indeed women are less aggressive than men, they could also make good parents. In some cultures, such as the Aka fathers of Central African Republic, men are known to take up very active roles in bringing up the kids. This can be attributed probably to the dynamics of their societal structure.

Men and women work interactively to provide for the community as they embrace communal mode of production. This enables the fathers to have more time to interact with their children and family unlike the case of most men in Western societies. From this, evidence speaks for itself that men can also take the responsibility of nurturing and rearing their children and that its just pressures from their cultures that make them to think that they naturally do not have the ability to do so (Counihan, 1999).

Conclusion

Brettell and Sargent (2009) have succeeded in explaining that the differences in masculinity and femininity can be explained through incorporation of the biological sex of an individual, plus the environment they are brought up in. We are persuaded that gender is a product of both nature and culture.

The varied differences evident in gender roles across different cultures and societies show that gender description must incorporate both culture and nature. The gender assigned roles that men are more aggressive than women and that they fit better in combat unlike women, are just societal constructions by the military and the community at large to bar women from taking up positions in combat.

It is thus evident that definition of one’s gender is a product of both nature and culture. Gender therefore varies across the diverse cultures and it is dynamic as it is subjective to changes in the environment.

References

Brettell, C., & Sargent, C. (2009). Gender in cross-culture perspective. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Counihan, C. (1999). The anthropology of food and body: gender, meaning, and power. London: Routledge.

Click Here To Order Now!