The social construction of gender is a prevailing concern among many social theorists and modern culture, particularly as society becomes more aware of the often arbitrary delineations between what is ‘male’ or ‘female’ about things like behavior, dress and attitude. Aaron Devor’s “Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes” explicitly explores these issues of the cultural construct of gender, particularly the ways in which male and female behaviors are defined and categorized. This becomes especially important in the context of Mariah Burton Nelson’s “I Won, I’m Sorry,” which looks at these stratified gender behaviors in the context of sport. Looking at Nelson’s points about gender from the perspective of Devor, it is clear that the two perspectives are chiefly in agreement, illustrating the ways in which sport-related gender stratification reflects the larger societal associations these behaviors have to gender.
Devor’s overall perspective in “Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes” is that the normal cues of masculinity and femininity are constructed by culture while Nelson’s “I Won, I’m Sorry” solidifies this arbitrary, culturally-mandated division in behaviors in the context of women in sport. In many ways, Devor believes that “the cultural superiority of males is a natural outgrowth of the innate predisposition of males toward aggression and dominance, which is assumed to flow inevitably from evolutionary and biological sources” (Devor 673). This flows naturally into Nelson’s argument that sports inherently favors masculine behaviors associated with men. Masculinity is associated with success through competition, which “requires of its participants a degree of emotional insularity to protect oneself from becoming vulnerable to manipulation by others” (Devor 676). To that end, the kind of femininity associated with female athletes in Nelson’s article would be discouraged, as “Masculinity thus becomes ‘innately’ valuable and femininity serves a contrapuntal function to delineate and magnify the hierarchical dominance of masculinity” in society (Devor 676). Judging from Nelson’s article, Devor would support Nelson’s assertion that, in sport and everywhere else, women are placed at a disadvantage by inherently giving the impression through their gender that they do not possess the valuable character traits needed to be successful in life.
Devor agrees with Nelson that maleness is inherently valued in the social construction of gender, as it is presumed that traditionally male attributes are inherently more valued in society to the detriment of women. Just as in Nelson’s description of the competitiveness of sport, Devor argues that “the dominant persons of either gender tend to use influence tactics and verbal styles usually associated with men and masculinity” (673). However, this leads Nelson’s female athletes to juggle this aggression with a “femininity game” where delicacy and beauty are favored over actually competing (440). Speaking to Nelson’s points about how this is unfair to women, Devor would note that, socially, women are culturally conditioned to have feminine traits, which are then discouraged in male-dominated fields like athletics: “femininity, as a role, is best suited to satisfying a masculine vision of heterosexual attractiveness” (Devor 674). This would then also explain the stigma women have for behaving in a perceived ‘male’ way, as these female athletes are pressured by society to act as rewards for men performing physical activities, not as participants in those physical activities themselves. They must even perform apologetic behavior for their “masculine strivings” to be accepted as female athletes, as if their behavior is an aberration whose existence does not necessarily threaten male dominance and ownership of those traits (Nelson).
Largely, the two perspectives coalesce, with Devor’s larger cultural exploration of masculinity and femininity informing the smaller microcosm of Nelson’s sports-related gender roles. Most important to these distinctions between gender performance in sport and society is Nelson’s assertion that men are allowed to have a “full range of human behaviors” in which they can perform, while women are restricted to “gender appropriate ones” that limit their ability to comfortable perform in the same arena (Nelson 440). However, Devor believes that men, like women, are similarly restricted by their own gendered behaviors, as patriarchal visions of masculinity require that “ideal maleness (masculinity) must remain untainted by female (feminine) pollutants” like sensitivity and communication (Devor 675). While masculinity is inherently favored in both instances, Devor believes that men are incentivized to limit their feminine behaviors in much the same way as Nelson states women must mute their own masculinity.
However, while Devor offers the possibility of creating and accepting ‘exceptions’ to these rules, allowing women to exert masculine traits without social stigma, Nelson is far less optimistic on that front. Nelson is extremely discouraged by the state of gendered behaviors and attitudes in professional sport, as women’s attempts to break the “femininity game” lead to tremendous backlash for not being ‘ladylike’ enough to be rewarded or accepted by society: “Like men, you’ll have to be smart and industrious, but in addition you have to be ‘like women’” (Nelson). Devor believes otherwise, claiming that “our training to gender roles is neither complete nor uniform,” allowing people to transcend these gender norms without a necessary response from patriarchal society (677). Devor notes that masculinity and femininity are, rather than hierarchical in nature, “two different approaches to the same question, that question being centrally concerned with the goals, means, and use of power” (Devor 673). While Devor acknowledges Nelson’s frustrations with the lack of progress and circular logic that surrounds women’s attempts to perform masculinity, he notes that there is hope for exceptions to appear and successfully transcend these gendered restrictions.
Comparing “Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes” to “I Won, I’m Sorry,” the culturally mandated ways in which men and women are expected to act are outlined in detail. Devor’s perspective on gender more or less lines up with Nelson’s, in that both argue for the unfairness and arbitrary nature of the assignment of aggression and toughness to males and fragility to females. Because of the inherent valuing of aggression and dominance in society, and males’ subsequent ownership of it, women exerting those traits is seen as an aberration that must be excused or apologized for. Nelson, in particular, points out the ways in which this miscalibration leads to negative outcomes for women in sport when they exert traditionally masculine traits, as they must also display sufficient femininity to prevent men from feeling threatened at the loss of their own advantage. However, Devor believes there is a brighter future on the horizon for masculine-presenting women, as exceptions to the rule can be (and are) found, offering a more optimistic view for the potential for tough women to be celebrated without attributing maleness to them than Nelson provides. While both authors argue for the unfair prioritizing of male aggression in society, Devor provides an opportunity for Nelson’s ‘femininity game’ to be overcome, if only in some small exceptions.
Works Cited
Devor, Aaron. “Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes.” Pp. 672-677.
Nelson, Mariah Burton. “I Won, I’m Sorry.” Self 20(3) (March 1998): 145.
