Social Construction Of Gender In Chapter 5 Of The Gendered Society

1077 Words 4 Pages
In Chapter 5 of of the Gendered Society (2011), Kimmel and Holler discuss the interactionist approach of ‘doing gender’. They discuss the arguments of Candace West and Don Zimmerman, who suggested that gender is not an inactive or fixed component, but instead it is a characteristic of an action and gender is the product of an occurring interaction (Kimmel & Holler, p.127, 2011). Kimmel and Holler (2011) argue that doing gender is a case of our biology determining which gender one will become (p.127). This relates to the social construction of gender because by determining gender we are suggesting that culture is culture creates gender roles and those gender roles are suggested to be appropriate behavior for that person of specified gender (Kimmel …show more content…
‘To do’ gender is an interactionist approach where our interaction and the physical evidence of our biological sex determines our socialized gender roles (Kimmel & Holler, p.127, 2011). Male genitalia and female genitalia classify the two sexes into different genders thus assuming they have differing personalities, which would necessitate diverse institutional and social characteristics to acclimatize to their social differences (Kimmel & Holler, p.127, 2011). Relating gender inequality and gender difference suggest also play a major responsibility in what it means to ‘do gender’. The case of Agnes, as discussed by Kimmel and Holler (p.131, 2011) further cements the idea that our primary sex characteristics does not determine our gender alone, because in this case Agnes was in every way a girl, but she did have a penis. Even with this ‘biological mistake’, as she referred to it, Agnes continued to always believe she was a girl, that genitals did not represent her femininity, instead Agnes referred to her breasts and her ‘lifelong sense’ that she was a female, as the signs of her femininity (Kimmel & …show more content…
I don’t have any fear of talking to random person when I need something from them, or just to start a casual conversation. However, the process I use to identify a person’s character and personality when talking to them is a very peculiar one. When walking on the street or to the UTM campus, I immediately identify a person by their shoes, I then immediately look up to their hair, then eyes, then nose and then mouth. This method of identification allows me to assign a social gender role to that individual immediately. This method takes place within a few seconds and is an ideal way to identify the gender of an individual, but it can also be wrong, because it becomes a problem with transvestites and drag queens which will identify as the opposite gender that they were born with. Referring back to the Agnes case, her femininity was not representative of her genitalia of which was male, but the way she lived her everyday life, she identified as a female (Kimmel & Holler, p.131, 2011). Using my method, I wouldn’t have been able to identify if she was born a male. I haven’t personally had the experience of meeting a transgendered individual, but in films like, Dallas Buyer’s Club there are individuals who I though might indeed be female until they took the wig off, the example I’m referring to is Jared Leto’s role as Rayon. It was only

Related Documents

Related Topics