And this is a brief discussion about how social constructionism and doing gender, social deviance (or Goffman’s stigmatization) and intersectionality all work together, and how we can use them to reveal institutions and structures of inequalities.
First and foremost, it’s important to be clear about the definition of social constructionism, or the development of reality through various social conventions. Judith Lorber argues (as does Stony Brook University’s Michael Kimmel) that the gender differences that are thought to arise from biological sex divisions actually emerge from social practices. For example, the idea that women are more nurturing than men and therefore as mothers are the ideal parent to stay at home and be lifelong housekeepers is not borne out by biology but is what is discursively made accessible in certain sociopolitical settings, such as a hetero-patriarchy. …show more content…
I am emphasizing this to highlight the responsibility that society demands of its gender categories, not biology. There is literally nothing in one’s genotype that motivates a man to hold a door open for a woman (or dictates a woman could not do the same for a man or anyone else). Similarly, there is no genetic reason that says a woman must be more emotionally expressive, or a man is evolutionarily driven to commit sexual assault and rape (yes, some theorists have argued this).
But if when we “do” gender in the ways society deems it appropriate, certain repeated beliefs or behaviors become considered
First and foremost, it’s important to be clear about the definition of social constructionism, or the development of reality through various social conventions. Judith Lorber argues (as does Stony Brook University’s Michael Kimmel) that the gender differences that are thought to arise from biological sex divisions actually emerge from social practices. For example, the idea that women are more nurturing than men and therefore as mothers are the ideal parent to stay at home and be lifelong housekeepers is not borne out by biology but is what is discursively made accessible in certain sociopolitical settings, such as a hetero-patriarchy. …show more content…
I am emphasizing this to highlight the responsibility that society demands of its gender categories, not biology. There is literally nothing in one’s genotype that motivates a man to hold a door open for a woman (or dictates a woman could not do the same for a man or anyone else). Similarly, there is no genetic reason that says a woman must be more emotionally expressive, or a man is evolutionarily driven to commit sexual assault and rape (yes, some theorists have argued this).
But if when we “do” gender in the ways society deems it appropriate, certain repeated beliefs or behaviors become considered