Summary Of 'Beyond Caring : The Demoralization Of Gender'

The paper written by Kennedy and Davis, which was called The Reproduction of Butch-Fem Roles: A Social Constructionist Approach, provides further evidence that the history of sexuality is young and

How does 'sexuality' come into being, and what connections does it have with the changes that have affected personal life on a more general plane? In answering these questions, Anthony Giddens disputes many of the interpretations of the role of sexuality in our culture. The emergence of what he calls plastic sexuality, which is sexuality freed from its original relation of reproduction, is analyzed in terms of the long-term development of the modern social order and social influences of the last few decades. Giddens argues that the transformation of intimacy, in which women have played the major part, holds out the possibility of a society that is very traditional. "This book

Human sexuality is a common phrase for all, and anything, pertaining to the feelings and behaviors of sex for the human race. Sexuality has been a topic that has been discussed and studied for as far back as 1000 years B.C. and is still being studied today. As the discussion of sexuality has progressed through history, theories have been created based on research and experiments that scholars have implemented, based on their own perceptions of human behavior. Out of the many theories that pose to explain sexual behavior, Sexuality Now explained ten that are seemed to be the most overlapped, and built off of theories. Of these theories, two that were discussed in the text were the behavioral and sociological theory. These two theories cover some of the basic ideas of what could possibly influence a person’s sexuality.

Whether we like it or not, the stereotypes of gender are still prevalent in our life. In 2018, we like to act that stereotypes do not exist in our lives, but they do; however, this does not cause these stereotypes true. Often these stereotypes persist in how men and women morally reason. Women are more often seen as care reasoners where they make their moral decisions based on their instincts to care for others, while society perceives men as justice reasoners who make their decisions based on the law and what is just. In Moral Orientation, Carol Gilligan argues that these are the only two ways of going about moral reasoning. Women focus on care and men focus on justice. I will critique the argument made by Gilligan and propose why an alternative way that people morally reason is necessary.

Throughout both Week’s articles “The Language of Sex” and “The Invention of Sexuality” takes up the issue of an “essentialist approach to sex”. There are consequences to thinking about sex and gender as mainly caused by biological factors. If we change the word “breast” to “ankle” for the sake of argument. How does society learn that ankles are sexual, how did we come to learn that breasts are sexual? Perhaps by the media, dress codes or our parents. If we look at sex and gender from an essentialist approach we began to realize how unstable the concept is. Breasts are a body part and it is culture that has sexualized them, not biological factors. When people start to come out

One can see that gender is actually a social label that is produced from social expectations (Ore 99). These "gender norms" have led to the distinct inequality and oppression of women. Due to these norms, women are seen as incapable of being political or rational because their social duty is to stay at home and take care of the children (Glenn 23). The social creation of gender surely undermines the severe communal disadvantages that females take on. Humanity must forget these general notions that have been brainwashed into every day life.

“How we think about sexuality is conditioned and inhibited by a complicated history and, to make our problems worse, that history is in the power of those who have necessarily been antagonistic to women for a very long time. Males generally have been economically and socially superior to women since they became the primary producers and possessors of private property.” (Murphy Robinson, 1984: 251)

Throughout history, definitions of sexuality within a culture are created and then changed time after time. During these changes, we have seen the impact and power one individual or group can have over others. In the Late Nineteenth Century into the Early Twentieth Century, we see multiple groups of people and or authorities taking control over the idea of sex and how they believe society is being impacted by sex. At this point in time, society had groups of people who believed they had the power to control how society as whole viewed and acted upon sex. Those particular groups and ideas changed many lives and the overall definition of sexuality within that culture.

The modern day American study of human sexuality is generally accredited to biologist Alfred Kinsey. His research was published in 1948 with “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” and in 1953 with “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female.” These publications were highly controversial at the time because it revealed that a high population of people had sexual practices that were considered morally wrong at the time. Thus began a scientific discussion

Men and Women both have ethical opinions of what’s right and what’s wrong, but that doesn’t mean that one is inferior to the other. According to psychologist Carol Gilligan’s theory, she states that men and women envision adversely when it comes to moral code, however, both should be validated equally. She does not mean that they are considered equal, but only that their views of morality should be considered equal, even if they are completely different views of morality. I feel that Gilligan’s theories of moral difference between men and women are valid assumptions, but imply inferiority.

Cecilia Ridgway, in “Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World,” holds that gender exists as an organizing social force. We value certain stereotypes of how people of a certain gender should act and incorporate these expectations into our social relations. Men, Ridgeway explains, are typically viewed as having more “competence, assertiveness, confidence, independence, forcefulness, and dominance” (Ridgeway, 2011) in social relations. Women, on the other hand, are viewed as valuing “emotional expressiveness, nurturance, interpersonal sensitivity, kindness, and responsiveness” (Ridgeway, 2011). According to Ridgeway, these gender stereotypes are basic knowledge in the contemporary United States and, therefore, are present in most social interactions.

Socialization regarding gender impacts the way an individual: ranks themselves in society in comparison to other genders, lives their gender identity within society, and self-identifies as a gendered being. The intended goal of socialization is to prepare the individual for their role in several institutions, but roles are different depending on gender. The patriarchal American society holds many dated misconceptions about gender roles that result in differences in the socialization of men and women. Men are socialized to lead and excel in institutions, while women are socialized to play supporting roles. This has shown to be particularly true in the institutions of family and the workforce, in which men are socialized to be bread-winners and

The article was fulled with information of history of sex and gender with both anthropologists’ and biologists’ views. It shows that human sexual behavior changes with time, it’s not timeless or universal. From ancient Greece to the present, understanding of sexuality has many periods of change. Boswell’s essentialism and Halperin’s constructionism tried to build some general basis of these changes. Before the article, I really don’t know that my body is constructed! It’s obvious that my body is forced by society to be in a form of man or a woman, but I had presumed that this forcing has just an external influence. In fact, that’s the part of my sociality. Elizabeth Grosz says that “without human sociality, human sexuality cannot develop”. (The article ends with the idea of individuals’

The lack of commitment is when a person refuse to compromise to other person and act selfish. Unless a commitment is made, there are only promises and hopes, but no plans. Different expectations and bad habits are components of the lack of commitment. For example, in the article “Can’t We Talk?” (Condensed from: You Just Don’t Understand by Deborah Tannen) “A man who tries to achieve and maintain status while a woman tries to approach to the network of connection seeking support and consensus” (Tannen). In this case the relationship is not committed, since they are looking for different goals and they do not try to obtain something that can connect them more. Bad habits are also a problem in a relationship, for example, if the couple agree to live together and one of them is a very clean person, but the other does not like to clean. There is a high probability that they would break-up, because they have different habits. As a consequence of different expectations, and bad habits, the relationship will end in a separation; therefore, the lack of commitment is a principle reason to

What I found to be particularly interesting in terms of Weeks’ composition of sexuality, is how family systems and kinships seem to be the foundation of which we construct sexuality as a whole. Traditional families and kinships - families not bound by blood - are living amongst each other, largely in amity. Despite this, the importance of the patterns that we see within these relationships, such as single parenthood, age of marriages, and opinions on non-procreative or non-heteronormative sex, are enhanced through kinships and family ties.