Jane Juffer brings up a very interesting argument in her novel, Single Mother, about the specific roles a mother plays in raising a son. Many who would argue against Juffer claim that the son needs a male role model in his life—if the boy does not have this, critics are afraid he could develop some sort of “Oedipal complex” or (possibly worse in their eyes?) grow up to be “too feminine.”
However, what is “too feminine”? What is just plain “feminine”? Doesn’t society determine what is feminine and what is masculine in the first place? These gender roles have been assigned years ago, and today they invade culture so much that they have become natural—“the norm.” The ‘inherent meaning’ of feminine does not exist outside of the contexts created by society. We are led to believe from a young age that this ideology of men being masculine and women being feminine is natural. Yet the whole conception that males and females must act different is a societal construction. Many people seem to argue that simply because males and females have physical differences, they must also act in entirely different manners. While of course these differences should not be entirely ignored, they should also not be completely separated.
This argument of differences also relates to the chapter we read recently in The Theory Toolbox about the influences things such as gender or status can have on one’s perception of the world (certain events or ‘signifiers’). However, could it be that these elements only affect our view because society tells us that they must? Or does coming from a certain part of town truly affect how you look at the world? In a way, each of these arguments seems to hold some truth.
For example, in some ways females could tend to view themselves in a certain light—somehow relating their ‘skills’ to things such as cooking, family values, etc (whether they excel at these ‘skills’ or not). But many of these ‘skills’ are a societal construction in the first place. Granted, these days, gender “equality” is becoming much more prevalent and less of an issue, but there are always small things that can be changed. Also I am not claiming that males don’t have to deal with stereotypes, as many can attest that they do. In fact, there seems to be no escape from the stereotype no matter where you come from or how you live. These stereotype perceptions are what seem to create the need to see things “differently.”
A question I pose to you then is this: do you think that everything we perceive is affected by outside influences? Or is there anything inherent within an individual that causes them to see things in a certain way?
I think that the way we percieve things is affected by outside influences for the most part. We grow up learning about the world around us, whether or not it is the "truth" we learn or stereotypes and common conceptions of what is normal. Then if we go to a university and take courses in the Humanities, or if we just like to ponder the world around us (which I think would be an intrinsic quality in this individual), we may start to challenge our ideas. But even so, the way that we are is mainly shaped by outside forces as we go through life, from our different experiences and interactions with people and ideas.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with Marissa. For the most part, we are influenced by outside influences (like going to college for example). One could even argue that pondering the world is also influenced by the outside because it decides how we ponder or what we ponder about. For example, us pondering stereotypes is influenced by us being in a literary theory class which in turn is influenced by University standards which is influenced by state and national standards of higher education etc.
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that the negative influences of things like gender roles, which ultimately shape an individual and their self-hood, are due in part to culturally perpetuated binary oppositions (such as masculine vs. feminine)? It seems like this is the main problem with it. However, merely demystifying or deconstructing these binary oppositions does not seem to be enough when it comes to trying to deal with these stereotypics and negative standards of personhood. What then is there left to do? I think alterity may play a key role in trying to remedy this societal problem.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Marissa and Keblogging. We truly are influenced by the outside world. I would also say though we are not on our own in being influence by the outside world. The world looks to Universities for the next big thing so I believe that there is some sort of relationship that exists between us.
ReplyDelete