The concept of gender and its various implications looms over various facets of our society, from workplaces to established laws. It’s evident that gender differences are replicated across cultures, whether it’s systematic or derives from individual decisions. We are surrounded by gender lore from a young age; it is omnipresent in various interactions, from entertainment to workplaces. Gender is embedded so thoroughly in our institutions, our actions, our beliefs, and our desires, that it appears to us to be completely natural. Our society seems to swarms with ideas about gender. Embedded deep within the psyche of modern society, gender is a persistent feature of everyday life. It creates normalized behaviors and characteristics for each person, holding them accountable for even the most trivial actions.
Socialized gender is such a commonplace that many accept it is normalized, and widely accepted as familiar adage, just as global warming is scientific fact. The discussion revolving around gender and its turbulent controversy is embodied by the polarizing articles, “Why Women Still Can’t Have It All” by Anne-Marie Slaughter and “Why Men Still Can’t Have It All” by Richard Dorment. Through the conception of gender roles sketched in the previously mentioned articles, both authors perpetuate naturalized conceptions of gender that may be capable of being categorized differently.
It’s widely agreed that gender appears natural, and beliefs surrounding gender seem to be apparent truths; it is because of this notion that we as a spectator and society must examine gender from retrospect, and therefore from new perspectives. Doing this demands that we suspend comfortability, and even question some of our most fundamental beliefs. This is not easy, for gender is so central and core to our understanding of ourselves that it is a colossal task to simply “step back”. Anne-Marie Slaughter, for example, opposes traditional gender roles, and draws relationships between the divisions of labor that permeates society in every aspect. Slaughter’s article, ‘Why Women Still Can’t Have it All’, grapples with the misconception that women can ‘have it all’, and focuses her argument on the balance of work and life.
127 our experts are availableright now
Slaughter opposes the tendency to conflate happiness with professional success, and supplements her argument through the evidence of her personal experience, “I’d been the woman smiling the faintly superior smile while another woman told me she had decided to take some time out or pursue a less competitive career track so that she could spend more time with her family.” (Slaughter). Here, she articulates the propensity to connect divisions of labor to reproductive roles. In other words, women, as bearers of children, are assigned not only to delivering them, but to raising them, and to the nurturing not only of children but of entire families, and to the care of the home in which families are based. This proposes an interesting sequence of ideas, such as the notion that sexual division of labor in all kinds of areas is standardly justified in terms of the different biological requirements for female roles.
Upon further inspection, connections of perpetuated attributions of “nurturing” seems to follow women’s every action. Citizens of a plethora western industrial society are likely to be able to produce the following set of gender associations: men are strong, women are weak; men are aggressive, women are passive; women are nurturing. The list continues, and together these oppositions yield the quintessential “man and woman” and establish their differences. These listed oppositions hold powerful jurisdiction, both because of their place in gender ideology, and because of the ways in which their representations manifest and permeate society. As Slaughter eloquently phrases it, “Men are still socialized to believe that their primary family obligation is to be the breadwinner; women, to believe that their primary family obligation is to be the caregiver” (Slaughter). This web of associations that constitutes gender has tied gender opposition together in the popular & public mind. Slaughter contradicts this supposed phenomenon, and bloats women’s capability- that it soars beyond the process of gendered endeavors.
Slaughter additionally exercises logos (logic & reasoning) by prompting statistics surrounding the idea of women flourishing in workplaces when given the opportunity, ‘Losing smart and motivated women not only diminishes a company’s talent pool; it also reduces the return on its investment in training and mentoring. In trying to address these issues, some firms are finding out that women’s ways of working may just be better ways of working, for employees and clients alike’ (Slaughter). By drawing gender relations to the workplace, Slaughter emphasizes the generalizations about gender and suggests that while structured institutions (such as aforesaid workplaces) constrain gender practice practice, it does not determine it. Moreover, one can also deduce that the gendered division of labor in western society relies heavily on the allocation of women’s function to the domestic, or private, realm and men’s to the public realm. However, the echo of such non traditional practices in recent years (as Slaughter vocalizes) has contributed to evolving definition of “male and female”.
Since structure and practice are in a seemingly perpetual dynamic and dialectical cycle, there’s always another side to the story. Whereas Slaughter proposes that women face daily plights, Richard Dorment asserts that men have it just as hard as women do, and if not harder in the article, “Why Men Still Can’t Have it All”. A central point within his writing is that recent times are making it more difficult for men to balance work and family life. Dorment’s version of events, expressed by employing masculine and alternative individualized perspectives, represents one of greater and perhaps neglected intricacy. To elaborate on his combating claim, he points to the certainty of men working simultaneously at work and home more than ever before in history. He subsequently includes statistics that support the idea that degrees being earned by women. To build off of this point, according to Dorment, about 60% of both bachelors and graduate degrees are dedicated to women and “unmarried and childless women who are under thirty and with full-time jobs earn 8 percent more than their male peers in 147 out of 150 of the largest U.S. cities” (Dorment).
In relevance, Dorment claims that women have more free time than before with the support of universal after-school programs which allow them to be away from their children for a longer time. Evidently, this results in men being equally required to share responsibilities at home. The era of role-changing discussed was witnessed in the explosive period of World War II, for example. As many workplaces were deprived of workers (particularly men), women began to assume the responsibility of jobs that were conventionally executed by men. Gender roles are therefore not stagnant; the development of such progressive practices in recent years/demanding times can testify to the fragility of gender practices.
There are a plethora of variables one must consider when evaluating the validity of the gender discrimination (focusing in America). Before continuing with such a task, it’s vital to acknowledge that the subject of alleged gender inequality is multi faceted, and must be treated as such. Although, it is irrefutable that gender as it relates to limits, obligations, desires, and perception are so deeply interwoven in our multi-dimensional society that it is often difficult to separate gender from other aspects of life. This idea does not translate into systematic prejudice, and is not inherently motivated by sexist stereotypes.
However, it is precisely the fact that gender seems self-evident that makes the study of gender incredibly interesting. It provokes the challenge to uncover the process of construction that creates what we have so long thought of as natural and inexorable. The results of failure to recognize this challenge are manifest not only in the popular media, but in academic work on language and gender as well. The reality of social expectations have been the omnipresent foundation of the divisions of labor. The only way to close this “division” is to achieve a society where men and women are completely interchangeable in the context of their family and work roles. It is only under this circumstance will we reach gender parity. The extension of a domestic role has shadowed many occupations populated by mainly women, from nurses to cooks. In essence, the maintenance of the “gender assignment” is rapidly deteriorating, as industrial countries demand a diverse array of labor.
