The Role Of Gender In Wittig's One Is Not Born A Woman

Gender derives its formative meaning from culture and societal values, it is not a universal entity as there are various cultures, societal values, beliefs, and preferred ways of organizing collective life across the globe and even within a single culture the meaning of gender varies over time. Chapters three and four of Gendered Lives by Julia T. Wood helps to insightfully look at those views, and rhetorical movements (women and men’s movements) that have overtime influenced, defined and given various meanings to gender (masculinity and femininity).

Gender can be defined as “sex roles” which are conditions that one considers to be for men or women. People tends to mistake it with sex or thinks that they are both the same. We discussed about the patterns of gender which how the authors of The Kaleidoscope of Gender describes it as “regularized, prepackaged ways of thinking, feeling, and acting” (Spade and Valentino,2017). It becomes an identity for us. We believe that there is and can only be two genders, being masculine for men and feminine for women. These roles has been forced onto us since birth: blue for boys, and pink for girls. You can see the roles being push onto a person throughout one’s life, but we don’t notice it since it’s “normal” to us.

Gender is actually a set of rules, customs and traditions assigned to people of a particular sex. Gender is not biological but sex is. Rather, according to Lorber, it is influenced by our society and our culture. By proving this claim, Judith Lorber has put forth the example of the man and this example is efficient in distinguishing “gender” as a practice than as an innate attribute.

In Wittig's “One is Not Born a Woman,” biology is a classifier that naturalizes gender distinction between women and men based on the physical discrepancies. Biology, as a field of science associated with historical evidence, constructs social conventions of gender difference and instills the idea as a permanent fact. The differing role of women and men throughout history is justified by the term “biological predisposition” and “holds onto the idea that the capacity to give birth (gender role based on biological function) is what defines a woman” (Wittig 10). The notion of biology in this term defers authority to the image of science -reasoning that concludes to a fixed and proven answer. The deference

What is it that makes a woman a woman, or what makes a man a man? Deborah Tannen, author and Ph.D. of linguistics, investigates this question within the essay, “There Is No Unmarked Woman.” An excerpt from a larger publication, “Talking from 9 to 5,” written in 1994, “There Is No Unmarked Woman” is an effective examination of the social injustice as to why the state of womanhood is “marked” while the state of manhood is “unmarked”, and what this means for each sex. The book itself is a result of real-life research about the conversational

Gender as a Social Construction This annotated bibliography is focused on research that supports the idea that gender has been socially constructed. Haslanger’s chapter offers an understanding of what is meant by the term ‘socially constructed’ and how gender can be defined from this viewpoint. Zimman complements Haslanger’s argument by explaining that it is our discourse that influences our perceptions of gender. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet’s chapter is helpful when explaining how gender is socially constructed by exploring how from birth we are treated and labeled according to whether we’ are male or female.

The body once established as “natural” and binary sex an unquestioned “fact,” is the alibi for constructions of gender and sexuality, which can purport to be the just-as-natural expressions or consequences of a more fundamental sex. It is on the foundation of the construction of this natural binary sex that the binaries of gender and heterosexuality are likewise constructed as innate. This narrative “gives a false sense of legitimacy and universality to a culturally specific and, in some cases, culturally oppressive version of gender identity” (Butler 329). Without a critique of sex as produced by discourse, Butler claims, the distinction of sex and gender used to contest the constructions of binary gender and enforced heterosexuality would be wholly ineffective.

Butler’s overarching idea throughout her essay is that becoming a gender is not done through linguistics but rather action – specific focus to the body. From the beginning of the essay, Butler makes the distinction between gender and sex very clear. Gender is plainly a social construct and the gender you choose to associate with is developed through repeated actions. Sex rather, is anatomic; your internal bodily organs and reproductive systems define it.

Gender subjectivity is another important aspect of the debate around gender because it focuses on a move away from the idea of innate sexual identity characteristics that divide human beings into male and female (Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, 2014). This type of view challenges the essentialism of sexual difference into something more then a binary between male vs. female, heterosexual vs. homosexual, etc., as it recognizes that these dichotomies are problematic because the term of gender encompasses a whole range of identities across a spectrum. In particular ideas like what does it mean to be equal? (Butler) and seeing division of gender into binary conceptions of identity can be seen as a process of ‘othering’ (de Beauvoir) are some of the areas that this topic examines.

For Judith Butler, sex and gender is an outlandish cultural construction which defines the body. She calls into attention gender as a substance and practicality of man and woman as nouns. Although gender is not a noun, it proves that it is

De Beauvoir’s “Woman as Other” lays out an elaborate argument on gender inequality; using the term “other” to establish woman’s alternate, lesser important role throughout her work, the author dissects and examines from its origin the female’s secondary position in society in contrast to man. Indeed, from the beginning of recorded history, the duality of man, by definition, positions woman at the opposing end of the spectrum in relation to her male counterpart. Even by today’s modern and accepting standards, the female suffers under the brand of being the sub-standard half of the duality equation; compared to her male opponent, women are paid lower wages, have fewer and limited expression of rights, achieve lower

Although some people believe that the sex role theory or the socialization model of gender as a process, in which we absorb instructions prescribed by the social institutions to act in the acceptable way to our biological sex, is a trivial issue, it is in fact crucial in terms of today’s concern over the gender formation. This significance is accurately noticed by Raewyn Connell, a renown sociologist who proclaimed her views in the essay “Gender in Personal Life” published in Gender: in World Perspective. In her work, the author reveals the flaws of the socialization model, states that psychoanalysis provides a moderately better clarification for the contradictory character of human development and offers a solution that people should actively learn through the dynamic character of gender formation. According to Connell, therefore, the definition of how we acquire gender should not be represented by the socialization model of gender but rather through the emotional contradiction as a part of psychoanalysis and, more importantly, thorough the active and dynamic character of gender formation.

Lastly, “femininity” refers to behavioural activities or interests that are assigned to the female sex, such as cleaning and cooking (Beauvoir, 617). Although many critics have read her text and become confused due to her stylistic choice to fuse her voice with the voices of famous men, it can be said that the text ultimately leads the reader to begin to question what society sees as a woman (Zerilli, 1-2). Despite Beauvoir’s The Second Sex appearing to recognize the oppression of women throughout the world without giving an actual solution, I will argue that Beauvoir’s evaluation of each “natural” aspect of female oppression allows readers to recognize that the only thing holding themselves back as a woman is society’s unnatural definition of their body, relation to men, and personal freedoms. Of course, when it comes to one's freedom, it is difficult to obtain when your body feels like a

As evident from the generalized patterns found in differences in behaviour and outlook observed between the sexes, it may be tempting, as has been done in the past, to conclude that gender is an unavoidable aspect of human existence as determined purely from one 's genes. Indeed, human physiology is subject to sexual dimorphism; statistically significant differences in brain size and rate of maturation of specific substructures in the brain exist between males and females (Giedd, Castellanos, Rajapakese, Vaituzis, & Rapoport, 1997), yet these physical differences fail to explain how individuals form their concept of their own gender, and why they tend to conform to their perceived gender roles as defined by the society in which they live, when these roles are ever-changing. Thus, it is important to differentiate between the physical and nonphysical traits, and how the labels of femininity and masculinity should not confuse the two aspects. As defined by Unger (1979), “sex” would be used to refer to the biological differences in males and females, while “gender” describes socioculturally determined, nonphysiological traits which are arbitrarily designated as being appropriate for either females or males. With more recent awareness and interest in matters of gender nonconformity and individual gender identity, new research now explains how these concepts of gender are shaped by social influences (Perry

In 1990 Judith Butler first published her book Gender Troubles, where she questions gender roles. Butler theorizes that gender, as in male and female, is a type of societal/gender colonialism created to keep people who do not fall within the gender roles from being part of the mainstream society. In her 1999 preface, in which she addresses the impact her book had in the decade since its original publication, Butler expresses the concern she had with the “heterosexual assumption in feminist literary theory (61).” Butler utilizes the works of other feminist philosophers to further demonstrate the inconsistency, and disconnect between fighting for women rights and fighting for human rights. Judith Butler makes an interesting argument on the failure to recognize the spectrum of gender, however, she makes a compelling argument on the use of language perpetuating a patriarchal society.