Social Construction of Gender as the Cause of Gender Inequality

Has idealism stripped individuals in a society of their right in uniqueness, preferences, and personal distinctions? Perhaps, society is too consumed with their endemic views on what they feel should be considered the norm. Perhaps, this commonplace is where many society feels most cozy. Nelly Oudshoorn exposes the idea that science is possibly the central root of Social Constructionism, normalizing the idea that women’s bodies are subjected to hormonal treatments to enhance the natural body, or what society expects the natural body to be. Social Constructionism has normalized hormonal treatment, which essentially works in maintaining a healthy fertile window, and maintaining strong feminine features. The idea of women generally exists around floating misconceptions, such as a wrongful, stereotypical view of just how a woman should appear to look. The hormonal treatments that are enforced unto women work towards enhancing feminine features society expects to see, making a woman’s appearance crucial to her identity. The differences amongst gender roles and behaviours are not natural outcomes of biological variations, however, are the consequences of cultural assumptions which have created a strain on the equality of women in certain social, as well as economic opportunities. The topic of social construction of gender is explored in this essay, as well as how this notion has caused inequality and female stereotyping.

Gender as a social construct

Social Construction theory is based on assumptions collected through various sources about the world around us. It is a theory, which is constructed on the basis of the norms and historical stories. Social Construction theory is a debate by itself which states that gender differences and gender inequality is rooted through assumptions, historical stories, cultures, beliefs and teachings. It is not a scientifically This theory suggests that the society and its culture, traditions, and norms plays a huge role in defining the gender roles, these gender roles are considered as the appropriate behaviour for the specific gender. Gender norms are taught from birth and it varies across space; social institutions such as culture, religion, politics, mass media and education helps to formulate this perceived behaviour. This approach is further elaborated in an article,“Introduction to Beyond the Natural Body” by Nelly Oudshoorn.

“For thousands of years, the “one-sex model” dominated biomedical discourse, even to such an extent that medical tests lacked a specific anatomical nomenclature for female .”

This quote focuses on the idea of gender equality and similarities between both genders. The only factor distinguishing them is the direction of their reproductive organs. Female body was considered similar to the male body, and their organs were assumed to function in the same manner. This misconception was to this extent that female organs were described by the name of male organs; for example, ovary was regarded as the female testicle. Terms such as vagina, ovary, and clitoris were not used in that timeframe. Female body structure was conceived as an inferior model of the male body and they lacked a separate identity of their own as a completely different gender. This shows the backwardness in the scientific methods and the understanding of the human bodies.

“Man is the measure of all things, and woman does not exist as an ontologically distinct category.’’

Women were not considered as competitive as men in ancient times, their sex was not given separate status and identity. Men were conceived as the perfect image of God’s creation, and women's status was analyzed and portrayed in comparison to men. This notion was a result of the patriarchal thinking that existed at that time.

“ By the late nineteenth century, medical scientists had extended his sexualization to every imaginable part of the body: bones, blood vessels, cell hair and brains” ( Schiebinger 1899:189)

From this time period onwards, medical scientists started focusing on the differences between both genders and contradicted the previous notion. Women’s body was distinguished on the basis of their non-identical organs and its functions to that of men. The role of their reproductive organs gave them a distinct identity.

This shift in the medical history changed the overall status of women in society by giving them an identity; although they were still considered as inferior being this idea started the revolution for gender equality which is still present in today's society.

Gender equality nowadays

Anne Fausto-Sterling’s Dueling Dualisms focuses on an economic point of view, as she discusses the wrongfulness women are put through in environments women are not commonly accepted in. Athletic organizations, in this case, The International Olympics, found it to be acceptable to belittle and diminish Spain’s top woman hurdler, Maria Patiño’s approval to compete in the 1988 Olympics. Maria Patiño had her femininity questioned as they anticipated the possibility that certain competitors would forget their certificate of femininity. The “control head-office of femininity” took it into their own hands to demand medical tests to insure Maria was full female, indefinitely. To do this, they scrapped cells off her cheek, and to her own belief, there would be no problem or confusion. Or so she thought. It was announced that Maria Patiño had failed her sex test, despite the fact she was female, all due to her body naturally supporting a Y chromosome, forcing her to produce testosterone that essentially leads to hidden testes in her labia. The Social Constructionism the Olympics abided by was that in their definition of femininity, Patiño did not meet their standards, thus meaning she could not compete professionally. This heartache of events confirms that the results of Social Constructionism have substantially affected women’s equality in economical bearings. This sad truth allows us to understand that those who abide by the standards of Social Constructionism view women for what they are physically, no more, no less. “I was erased from the map as if I had never existed. I gave twelve years to sports.” (Patiño) Although Patiño performed fantastically well in sports, was she too good at competing to be the fixed definition of women in the International Olympics? “I knew I was a woman, in the eyes of medicine, God ad most all, in my own eyes.” (Patiño) Patiño shared this statement with a reporter that allows us to understand that through Social Constructionism, a persons preference of self-identity simply does not come close to the importance of societies, which is vividly seen through stories such as these that take place in athletic settings, where women are continuously harassed and even mocked for “had to believe”, exceptional performances.

The Social Construction Approach has been known to our society as a prevailing issue since the mid-nineteen-hundreds. This wrongful approach is known to have created a barricade between women and equal social and economic opportunities. This approach is primarily the main cause for positive epidemics such as feminism, which aims for equal opportunity and fundamentally dwindles barricades between women becoming largely apart of society. Beliefs that fall under this theory are that women are solely subjected to their physical features as well as their reproductive capability. With this being proven, opportunities in social and economic settings are repeatedly dismissed or downplayed when connected to women. Subjected to jobs that require more of a “nurture” aspect, as appose to a physical and knowledge base aspect, many women can relate. I believe every woman can say they have experienced this stereotypical approach, because even though it may not have targeted them personally, this approach attacks women’s abilities as a whole, diminishing their value and capability to create a positive and more developed future.

References

1. Condry, J., & Ross, D. (1985). Sex and Aggression: The Influence of Gender Label on the Perception of Aggression in Children. Child Development, 56(1), 225-233. doi:10.2307/1130189
2. Daly, M. (1981). Women in the Irish Workforce from Pre-industrial to Modern Times. Saothar, 7, 74-82. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/23193838
3. Hoel H, Cooper CL, Faragher B. Workplace bullying in Great Britain: the impact of occupational status. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 2001;10:443–465. (2019)
4. Kohlberg L. A cognitive-developmental analysis of children’s sex-role concepts and attitudes. In: Maccoby EE, editor. The Development of Sex Differences. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1966. pp. 82–173
5. Martin CL, Ruble DN, Szkrybalo J. Cognitive theories of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin. 2002;128:903–933.
6. Portugal, Dr. Lisa Marie. (2014). The education of women: An historical to present day analysis. Publisher: Authur. 10.13140/2.1.3835.0080.
7. The Parliament Magazine. (2019). EU Equal Pay Day highlights women ‘working for free’ until year end. [online] Available at: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/eu-equal-pay-day-highlights-women-%E2%80%98working-free%E2%80%99-until-year-end