This article tries to discuss the topic of gender, and it’s manifestation in the society including sex and sex categorization in relation to gender. In the article, gender comes out as society’s construct that is “imposed” on someone depending on their sex. However, the article has also some views that sexual identities are male or female are beyond one’s genitalia (West and Zimmerman 125). The example given is that it is so obvious that the people we meet and call either male of female, we have not seen their genitalia to call them so. In essence, sex categorization as either male or female is more than one’s genitalia, is also considers anatomy, physiology, and hormones (West and Zimmerman 125).
While considering gender, the article exhibits two distinct facets from which gender is defined, from an individual’s perspective and from a societal perspective. An individual can define their gender borrowing from the discussion on gender display. For example, when one want’s to be identified as a woman, she might choose a certain way of dressing, hair style, reaction towards certain things in the society during his/her interactions with others in the society (West and Zimmerman 129). On the other side, these choices with which she makes to conform or to define her gender are constructs from the society. It is from the norms held in the society that one can know that for me to define my gender as a female, I have to put on dresses. From this argument, therefore, gender can be defined and doing gender does not only mean the societal creation of categorizing sexes. Gender can be done off the sex categorization point. In the example of Agnes, a transsexual who was trying to define her gender, it is her decision on whether to be of the male or female gender. She was obviously off the sexual categorization basis. She had to create a display so as to inform her gender to the society (West and Zimmerman 131).
In the article, gender also invokes accountability from those who subscribe or identify themselves as members of a certain gender, for example, to be a female physician, the level of accountability considering accountability on the profession is almost that of always excusable. It is common for male physicians to bear more burden of accountability in their profession than the female one. On the same note, the status of a female physician call for her to be accountable on the account of being female (West and Zimmerman 137). From the article, there is a view that competence from the various gender categories has been a construct of the society, and there has been a deliberate effort always to portray women as weak. More often than not, it is common to see society depicting femininity (associated with women) as weak by for example showing a woman scared at a scare-crew; on the other side, masculinity is displayed and associated with competence, courage, etc.. Therefore, a man will be shown helping a helpless woman, building roads, carrying heavy objects, etc. (West and Zimmerman 139).
Doing gender is demonstrated as having resulted from a certain inertia that has been exhibited by men and women performing certain roles designated as either male or female. For example, the wearing of a necklace has been associated with women. Even though the young boy, as used in the illustration in the article, is told that there is nothing wrong with wearing a necklace for even kings wear some things around their necks, there is some inertia that makes the boy say that necklaces are for girls (West and Zimmerman 142). Considering gender in the perspective of division of labor, Berk explains the allocation of household goods and the attitudes of couples towards dividing the household tasks amongst themselves (West and Zimmerman 143). Though the economic position of a woman might have changed in the modern society and women go to work as well as their spouse, it is still noticeable that the allocation of household duties does not take the dimension of who’s time is worth in economic sense. Even if by spending more time at work the woman would make more money, she still feels she should be taking care of the family in terms of household chores. This shows that the relationship between gender and division of labor is complex and cannot be balanced by merely creating an economic and financial balance between men and women in the society (West and Zimmerman 145).
The article summarizes by looking at gender in relation to power and social change. Gender seems to produce and reproduce apart from legitimizing and institutionalizing the results of sex categorization (West and Zimmerman 147). However, though through the intervention of feminist movement and legal facets like equal rights amendment, the accountability associated with different sex categories can be weakened. However, social change in terms of the legitimized and institutionalized gender roles and perceptions cannot be achieved by mere legislative and institutional framework. It must invoke and involve cultural change on doing gender which is as a result of the society and individuals within the society’s construct (West and Zimmerman 147).
In conclusion, my view to the sex and gender debate is that the complex societal construct which defines gender, gender roles and doing gender has developed so deeply that it has almost created a worldwide culture that almost everybody subscribes to except a few. However, even the few only try to escape this culture from an intellectual point of view but in practices, they find themselves conforming to culture even if not fully. As illustrated in the article, there is some inertia that befalls the various sex categories as far as doing gender is concerned. In my view, doing gender will only be done on a fair ground when all affected by the “world culture” feel the urge to change the status quo, a state of balance that satisfy all categories may not, however, be achieved.
References
West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. "Doing gender." Gender & society 1.2 (1987): 125-151.
