In my sophomore year of high school, I took a Human Geography AP class with the most quirky and animated teacher at St George’s High School for boys – Mr. Stephen Ziff.
Mr. Ziff began one class by asking us if we had ever came across the “Gender” category in forms or profiles we had filled, whether they be for the government, a social networking site (this site asks it!), academic institutions, or surveys. The experience of doing so around the class was unanimous, so our teacher followed up by asking if we thought there was a difference between gender and sex. Again, there was a consensus. This time, however, our agreement was due to our mislead conceptions.
Gender, Mr. Ziff adamantly preached, just like race, is a social construct. Sex, like ethnicity or nationality, is a much more specific term, denoting an entirely different meaning. Whereas sex is a biological term dividing individuals into two distinct categories of male and female, gender is a multifaceted expression embodying a variety of distinct characteristics. Whereas sex is black and white, gender is a hazy grey. Whereas sex is a discriminable product of nature, gender is an individual choice expressing many different implications.
Coming from a background of attending an all boys private school for twelve years, gender norms were clearly defined for me at a young age. Although my school always emphasized acceptance and respect, ostracizing would occur if any young man dared to disturb the tough aura of masculinity present amongst the student body. Imagine being, as one of my closer friends was, one of the few homosexual young men amongst a student body of heterosexuals. Who would he talk to during lunch hour as cliques of boys openly boasted about the girl they hooked up with the previous weekend?
My school’s principal sport was rugby, which I was apart of for six years. The sport was said to build men of strong character, developing manly qualities of bravery, courageousness, and boldness. For the longest time, this environment instilled a sense of division in my perception of gender roles in society: men should be rugged, unfeeling, and assertive and women should be the opposite. According to gender psychologist Sandra Bem, however, androgynous men, meaning men possessing a combination of “masculine” and “feminine” qualities, are more capable and well equipped to face any situation, whether it be in a relationship or professional setting.
As I begin my 2nd semester at USC, I have already been exposed to people from all walks of life, something I never truly got to experience at my high school. Sandra Bem’s assertion is becoming more relevant to me as I discover my experiences in college with other individuals, in my involvement in greek life or other extra-curricular activities, and in the classroom will oblige a flexible perception of gender and what it entails.
Having gone to an all boys private school, you will obviously bring a unique perspective to this course. I'd be interested to know how gender is consciously (and unconsciously) performed in this homogenous context. I'd also want to challenge the notion that it is as homogenous as it seems at first glance. Perhaps you can use this experience productively in your seminar paper?
ReplyDeleteI think it's a really great point that whenever someone is asked to mark whether they are male or female somewhere it's listed as their "gender." I think this is something that really supports the fact that gender is a social construct with many varying forms, whereas (as you point out) sex is on an either-or basis.
ReplyDeleteHowever, like Ed, I also wonder if the all-boy environment would in fact foster more variation in gender and not less. After all, in any population there must be individuality--even minuscule differences present that make each and every person their own person--and it seems that in a completely male environment these differences might be more pronounced, more varied.