Female to Male as Nature is to Culture Essay

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).

Feminine characteristics are thought to be intrinsic to the female facility for childbirth and breast-feeding. Hence, it is popularly believed that the social position of females is biologically mandated to be intertwined with the care of children and a 'natural' dependency on men for the maintenance of mother-child units."

Though women have played an integral part in the history of the discipline of anthropology, it was not until the early 1970’s that the field of anthropology and gender, or feminist anthropology emerged. Sex and gender roles have always been a vital part of any ethnographic study, but the contributors of this theory began to address the androcentric nature of anthropology itself. The substantial gap in information concerning the study of women was perceived as a male bias, a prejudice made more apparent because what little women-centered fieldwork was done received insufficient attention from the academic community. While anthropology was considered one of the more egalitarian fields of study, it was dominated by white, Western males who

In “True Women and Real Men: Myth of Gender” by Colombo he goes over the “culture myths of gender and the influence they wield over human development and personal identity”(467). Cultural myths do shape the roles of men and women play in our public and private relationships. Colombo then goes over how these roles are taught and enforced as well as the effects it has on men 's and women 's health. Gender roles are cultural

Throughout the history of society, women and men both have faced the constricting roles forced upon them, from a young age; each gender is given specific social and cultural roles to play out throughout their lives. Little girls are given dolls and kitchen toys, little boys are given dinosaurs and power tool toys, if one was to step out of this specified role, social conflict would ensue. Contrast to popular belief, sex is a biological construct, and gender is a social construct specifying the roles men and women are to follow to be accepted into society as “normal”. The effects of gender roles have had on women have proved harmful over the decades. Although the woman’s involvement in society has improved throughout the decades,

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.

This critical textual analysis will examine feminine identity and the essentialistic ideas of the late nineteenth century between men and women as elaborated by Kaplan and Rogers in “Essentialisms, Determinisms. It will include an analysis of theories regarding dichotomies of biological determinism and cranial classification. Essentialism argues that there are categories of objects and genres that have essential characteristics, notwithstanding individual variation, and that these essential characteristics define the objects and genres to an extent that they reveal truth (Kaplan and Rogers 27). Determinism is a theory or in some cases a doctrine. “Nature” has been the historical burden women have faced. It is not the only such burden, but it has been the largest and the heaviest. Psychological and social implications of essentialist beliefs create gender segregation, inequality, and is often used to excuse gender-based biases in society. These types of ideas are often used as a justification for misogynistic and essentialistic systems in society.

Research Question. This article sought to explore the societal relationship between women’s natural attachment to nature (by way of their reproductive characteristics) and its effect on not only others perception of them, but also the individual’s self-perception. The main hypothesis proposed in this study is directional. Furthermore, it questions if when either gender is prompted by something that reminds them of a women’s connection to

He helps his audience see how easy it is to naturally assume that dominance is the stronger trait, when in fact all characteristics are neutral. Society determines which characteristics are positive, negative, stronger or weaker. Devor uses scientific research to show how society’s definition of male and female characteristics “flow inevitably from evolutionary and biological sources.” (Devor 476). He argues that “feminine characteristics are thought to be intrinsic to the female facility for childbirth and breastfeeding,” forcing them to be more passive, attentive and communal. This, along with the female’s “‘natural’ dependency on men for the maintenance of the mother-child unit” gives them the title of “weaker sex” (Devor 476). Devor’s research clarifies that, from a strictly scientific perspective, men and women harbor a mutualistic relationship where the man must protect the woman, who is critically responsible for the birth and maintenance of his offspring. From a biological perspective, the two possess complementary character traits, making them equally important variables in this genetic relationship. Yet, somewhere along the lines, this evolutionary relationship seeped into modern day society, introducing the belief that the female social position is “biologically mandated to be intertwined with the care of children and a ‘natural dependency on men” (476). The modern

The physical body has been seen as many things both positive and negative. It can be thought of as the temple which houses the soul or can be seen as entrapping, like a cage of flesh. More often it seems that the body, especially women’s bodies, are looked at in more complicated ways than the bodies of men. As I grew up, it began to feel more and more like my body, and the bodies of other women, did not actually belong to us like we believed. Through my Women’s Studies class I have gained more knowledge on the body as a political object. In this essay I will examine six different articles with the similar theme of women’s bodies, the expression of those bodies and how by using feminism as a political standpoint they gain power and ownership of their bodies.

Ecofeminism is a multicultural perspective on the interconnectedness of social systems of domination and the domination of non-human nature. It recognizes the cultural and political links between ecology and

Biologically speaking, De Beauvoir notes that the sexes are defined in opposition to each other; for example, man is not woman and woman is not man. Their differences are, however, unidentifiable at the most basic of cellular levels. Therefore, the main differentiation of the two genders is demonstrated through sexuality. De Beauvoir goes on to argue that woman’s passive role in procreation reflects her passive role in society, and that society trains women to become subjugated from the very day of their birth. Further, despite the two sexes’ cooperative role in creating new members of the species, men are regarded as those who provide “the stimuli needed for evoking new life” (13) and women who simply enable the new life “to become lodged in a stable organism.” (13) This reinforces stereotypical notions of the virile male and the passive female, notions that are reflected in society as woman takes a

Who would have thought someone would devote their time into studying how males and females are observed and treated and compared to the way that society would act towards nature and culture? After all, Ortner’s arguments seemed to make sense! I feel that her arguments are not sufficient enough to prove why women are much closer to nature than men. To help prove her arguments; she must give all types of evidences from any single society, but not from different societies. Ortner only points out how women are much closer to nature and how men are more associated with culture activities, but lacks to point out or give sufficient examples of how women can be more associated with “culture” activities and how men can be associated with “natural” activities. I feel that her writing has a hint of racism toward males. Whether having her writing balanced out, she mostly concentrates on how women appears closer to nature and talks more about females than of males. Like many authors, Ortner writes within a historical and political context. Ortner’s choice of level follows from her structuralist theoretical position (Ortner, 1974:

Amongst societies, there is a great variety of means of survival, all of which are dependent upon factors influencing the community—geographical location and structure of authority, to name a few. Such factors and the community’s ways of survival create the underlying basis of other complex issues, including the relationship between the sexes. Many anthropological papers that concentrate on the modes of production of specific groups of people have shown a connection between the modes of production and the presence or absence of gender inequality. Futhermore, there is also evidence of a further causality between the two: as a society adopts a more complex mode of

What does it take to be a man or a woman? Our sense organs alone do not determine whether we are men or women. Our gender includes a multifaceted combination of beliefs, behaviors, and characteristics. How do we act, behave, and talk like a man or a woman? Each one of us has a sex, a gender, and a gender identity that are all aspects of our sexuality. These aspects describe who we are, in different personalities and attributes but related. Society’s categories for what is masculine and feminine may not capture how we truly feel, how we behave, or how we define ourselves.