Gender Roles in the Modern Era - Essay Example

?Introduction According to Simone de Beauvoir, in her book The Second Sex (1973), the word “female” and the word “woman” are two completely differentconcepts from one another. The word “female” designates that an individual has certain body parts, therefore is not a male (female genitalia, female breasts, etc.). However, the word “woman” is different, in that the word “woman” is driven by culture. Culture defines the term “woman,” according to de Beauvoir. De Beauvoir believes that a woman is something that one “becomes,” implying that there are purposive acts which create the woman identity. Butler (1986) states that the common thinking about how a female becomes a woman is governed by patriarchy and phallogocentric language “which precedes and determines the subject itself” (Butler, 1986, p. 36). In other words, Butler (1986) believes that the term “woman” is defined passively, not by the women themselves, but by the patriarchal culture. That said, de Beauvoir (1973) believes that oppression is not inevitable, but, rather, they persist because of cultural reasons. Butler (1990) further states that the concept of a universal patriarchy has come under fire, because patriarchy exists in “concrete cultural contexts” (Butler, 1990, p. 3). Butler (1990) also states that there is the possibility that women might have a bond through their oppression alone. Connell (1992) further states that gender, in and of itself, is a construction of power and hegemony, which means that the male identity is also influenced by culture and these outside forces. Connell (1992) believes that masculine identities may be hegemonic or marginalized – some masculine identities are the former, others are the latter. Similarly, there is a difference between masculinity and femininity, and this, too, is contrasted with the terms “male” and “female.” Bartky (2003) states the one achieves femininity, whereas one is born female. The same with masculinity – men might achieve masculinity, and be born male, or, alternatively, as with many homosexual men, one may be born male but not achieve masculinity. As with the philosophies of de Beauvoir and Butler, Bartky (2003) states that the concept of masculinity and femininity is dictated by the power structure, which states what the contours are of masculinity and femininity (Bartky, 2003). This article will examine how patriarchy and society has defined both men and women throughout the modern era. Discussion Standards of Beauty As de Beauvoir (1973) states, the feminine identity, and what it means to be a woman is defined by patriarchy and the male. In no area of a woman’s life is this more apparent than the standards of beauty, which are male-dominated. Women feel that they must conform to these male-dictated beauty standards, or they are somehow less than. The feminine ideal for beauty, therefore, is not only ever-changing, but is dictated by the power structure and patriarchy. Lorber (1993) states that the feminine ideal, at least during the early 1990s, which is when Lorber’s article was written, was slim-slim-hipped, small breasted and virtually emaciated. Women starved themselves for this ideal, and this ideal sold many magazines which promised women a way to become thinner, in order to fit this ideal. While this was the ideal in the early 1990s, and, more or less, continues to be today’s ideal, this was not always so – the feminine body ideal has changed over the years, according to society and culture. Calabrese et al. (2011) state that the feminine ideal is epitomized by Playboy models, which is similar to the ideal stated by Lorber (1993), in that the women is to be slim-hipped and slender, overall. However, in this ideal, the woman must also have large breasts. Barbie dolls exemplify this ideal, and girls and women increasingly pressured to fit this ideal, to the extent that they require plastic surgery to do so (Calabrese et al.., 2011). Frederick et al. (2007) state that these feminine ideals, as pushed upon society by the media and by our own dolls, make women essentially the object of male desire and sexual gratification, while also emphasizing the importance of appearance in how much a female is worth. This, according to Frederick et al. (2007), is what leads to inherent female body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Women’s Rights Just like the female standards of beauty are ever-evolving, according to the patriarchal societal views, how the female is viewed in marriage is similarly ever-evolving with the patriarchal society. For instance, in the Victoria era, women, once married, had no rights whatsoever. Abrams (2001) states that women were subjugated completely to the man, both inside the marriage and out. Inside the marriage, the woman was to be a wife, domestic manager and a mother. These were here only roles, the only roles that society deemed acceptable for the woman. She could not work, or, rather, it was socially unacceptable for her to work, which is part of the reason why women were expected to wear crinolines, corsets and hoopskirts. Motherhood was expected for these women - if a woman was not able to have a child, then she was expected to become a governess, because, if she were unable to care for children, she was considered deficient, abnormal and a failure (Abrams, 2001). Further, the Victorian woman was dependent upon the man, completely, and was literally his property. The woman was the man’s property, and, all of the woman’s property was also completely the man’s property – once a woman was married, any property that she owned ceased to be her property, and it wasn’t even joint property. It was the man’s property. This all began to change towards the end of the Victorian Era, as women began to acquire new rights – such as the right to vote and seek public office (Ramirez, 1997). World War I saw the advent of the “New Woman” who had a job outside the home. This new woman could be a secretary, could work on the assembly line, or could run for public office. The feminine identity was changing, and mass culture reflected this. Mass culture recognized that the woman was going through a change in her identity, and understood her fears, anxieties and desires (Lavin, 1993, p. 2). That said, according to Coontz (1997), by the 1950s, the woman was once more oppressed within a traditional marriage. Although her predicament was not as extreme as the Victorian woman – she could own her own property – the 1950s woman once again was virtually forced, by society, to stay home and take of children and her husband, rather than have a job and life of her own. And, like the Victorian woman, the 1950s woman was unhappy because of it. Coontz (1997) states that this oppression led many 1950s housewives to assuage their unhappiness with alcohol and pills, and their home lives with their husbands and children were so unhappy that many 1950s children express the sentiment that they would never want a marriage like their parents. However, the oppression of women led to another wave of feminism – the first wave came in reaction to the oppression of women in the Victorian era, the second wave came in reaction to the oppression of women in the post World War II era. This was ushered in the 1960s, with formation of the National Organization for Women and Betty Friedan’s book The Feminist Mystique (Blair, 2009). Thus far, women’s rights have not yet been rolled back to the Victorian Age or the post World War II age, to the extent that women are treated as virtual property of men, so the second wave of feminism seems to have taken hold of society and hopefully will continue to be the norm for women. Men Women are not the only gender which is defined by outside forces and culture. Men are as well. Kacen (2000) argues that the modern male identity was formed in the early 20th Century, as men’s roles were defined by society as being that of a breadwinner. However, Kacen (2000) argues that the post-modern male’s identity has become more fluid. In the post-modern era, the man is not defined by his bread-winning capabilities, but also by his consumption patterns. Their consumption defines them, argues Kacen (2000), just like, in earlier eras, female consumption patterns defined the female gender. Because of this, the metrosexual came into vogue. Segal (1990) agrees that the masculine identity has been dictated by the patriarchal society, stating that masculine identities, like that of feminine identities, are interconnected with the power structure. The metrosexual is examined by Woodruffe-Burton (1998), and is defined by her as men who uses consumption and “things” to define who they are. The men in her study used “compensatory consumption,” which means that they purchased things to make them feel better. The men in her study also used consumption as a way to construct their identities. For instance, Woodruffe-Burton (1998) tells the story of Ian, who shopped to alleviate boredom, and Peter, who constructed his identity by purchasing cutting-edge designer clothes. Glenn, another man examined by Woodruffe-Burton (1998), used clothes and fashion to increase his self-esteem after a breakup, and to construct a new identity – the clothes makes the man, according to Glenn, so a new wardrobe is what he sought to become somebody else. The men in Woodruffe-Burton’s study thus run counter to what a man should be in a hegemonic world – the hegemonic male would never use clothes and fashion to define himself. Sturrock & Plock (1998) further found evidence of the metrosexual trend in the purchase of male grooming products – they found that men were using these products as a way to define themselves. These men searched for just the right aftershave and just the right cologne, in order to present themselves to either a professional crowd, or a personal crowd, depending upon the scent. That said, Anderson (2008) argues that the metrosexual trend is, in itself, a trend which was produced by the patriarchal society, in that it was a trend which was introduced by mass marketing. According to Anderson (2008), marketers introduced this trend, and, in essence, told men that they, too, must have certain items in order to fit into society. Therefore, Anderson (2008) argues that the metrosexual trend is intimately tied with capitalistic structures, and capitalistic structures are a by-product of the patriarchal society. Therefore, the patriarchal society produced the metrosexual trend. Conclusion Society and culture dictates what it means to be a man or a woman. The man and woman identities are those which are imposed upon the genders by society – it can be contrasted with the words “male” and “female.” One is born a “male” or a “female.” Man and woman, and masculine and feminine, are what one becomes, and the contours of masculinity, femininity, man and woman are what society dictates. Women are defined by ever evolving standards of beauty, and ever evolving pantheons of rights. Both the beauty ideal, and what rights women hold are societal constructs, which is why they are ever changing. And, since society is patriarchal, what rights women are always beholden by what rights men allow women to have. What is considered to be the ideal of feminine beauty are the ideals according to what men consider to be feminine ideals. It works much the same way with men – men’s ideals are dictated by this same patriarchal society. The man is supposed to be the masculine breadwinner, but even the metrosexual trend is dictated by this same patriarchal society, because the metrosexual trend is driven by marketing, which, in turn, is driven by capitalism. Capitalism is, in turn, a product of the patriarchal society. Therefore, the man’s roles in society are just as driven by patriarchal society and cultures as are women’s roles. Lavin, Maud. Cut With the Kitchen Knife: the Weimar Photomontages of Hannah Hoch. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993. Coontz, Susan. The Way We Really Are. New York: Basic Books, 1997. Bartky, S. (2003). "Foucault, femininity, and the modernization of patriarchal power," in Weitz (ed.). The Politics of Women's Bodies: Sexuality, Appearance, and Behaviour. NY: Oxford University Press. Calabrese, S., Rima, B. & Schick, V. (2011) Evulvalution: the portrayal of women’s external genitalia and physique across time and the current Barbie Doll ideals. The Journal of Sex Research, 48.1: 74-80. Abrams, Lynn. “Ideals of Womanhood in Victorian Britain.” < http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/ soc/sociology/staff/academicstaff/jonesc/jonesc_index/teaching/birth/wk11_victorian_britain_handout.pdf> (2001) (Accessed 30 April 2012). Woodruffe Burton, H. (1998), ‘Private Desire, Public Display: Consumption, Postmodernism and Fashion’s ‘new man’,’ International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, vol. 26, no. 8, 1-13 Kacen, J. (2000), ‘Girrrl power and boyyy nature: the past, present and paradisal future of consumer gender identity,’ Marketing Intelligence and Planning, vol. 18, no. 6-7, pp. 345-355 Anderson, K. (2008) From metrosexual to retrosexual: The importance of shifting male gender roles to feminism. Thinking Gender Papers. Available at: http://escholarship.org/us/item/81z2f0p5 Butler, J. (1986) “Sex and gender in Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex.” Yale French Studies, no. 72, pp. 35-49. Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge. De Beauvoir, S. (1973) The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books. Connell, R.W. (1992) “A very straight gay: Masculinity, homosexual experience, and the dynamics of gender.” American Sociological Review, vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 735-751. Ramirez, F., Soysal, Y. & Shanahan, S. (1997) “The changing logic of political citizenship: Cross-national acquisition of women’s suffrage rights 1890 to 1990.” American Sociological Review, vol. 62, pp. 735-745. Segal, L. (1990) Slow Motion: Changing Masculinities, Changing Men. New Jersey: Rutgers University. Read More