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…
After using my own everyday life as a source to draw examples of doing gender, I see that, “We create and recreate our own gendered identities within the contexts of our interactions with others and within the institutions we inhabit (Kimmel & Holler, p. 132,
‘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…
After using my own everyday life as a source to draw examples of doing gender, I see that, “We create and recreate our own gendered identities within the contexts of our interactions with others and within the institutions we inhabit (Kimmel & Holler, p. 132,