Friday, February 20, 2015

Blog #5

            Social and gender construction have been around for many, many years.  Way back when, men were expected to do the hunting and women were expected to gather nuts, berries, and small animals.  Though these roles have been altered over time, they have traditionally been expected of us since the day we are born.  Social construction in general also remains prevalent in today’s society.  Hanfler talks a lot about skinheads and the way they dress/act to show which group they are a part of.  According to Hanfler, they have “socially constructed meaning around these supposedly meaningless, functional things,” referring to shoelaces.  Skinheads, like other social groups, have come up with their own symbols, “expectations,” and way of life that is specific to their own group.
            Hanfler also discusses the fact that skinheads typically work middle class jobs.  Their way of thinking is that “Real men drink beer and work at real jobs—that is to say, manual labor.”  This quote is supporting gender construction.  In Judith Lorber’s “Night to His Day,” she mentions the idea of the hunters and gatherers.  She says, “…When the men’s hunt is successful, it is the occasion for a celebration” and “White men do not have to do the “dirty work,” such as house work.”  What Lorber says about hunters and what Hanfler says about skinheads working “real” jobs are the same.  Men are thought to be the ones to do all manual labor, the harder work, and are not expected to do the dirty housework.  This is left to the women.  This is just one example of how gender construction has formed expectations of how men and women should act in today’s society, though it’s steadily changing.
            In Killermann’s TED talk, he brings up the idea of little girls being made to wear pink, whereas little boys are made to wear blue.  This creates the notion of being a boy or being a girl from the very beginning.  From when we are little, we know which gender we are because our parents and most people around us teach us what we should be.  I, like many others, can speak from my own experience to say this is very true.  I never had “male” toys while growing up, only girly toys.  Though I’m glad I turned out the way I am, I think it’s an interesting thing to think about.  Would I, along with other girls, be different if I had been given a lot of gender-neutral or even boyish toys?

            Like the skinheads and their symbols having to do with the social construction of their own groups, the simples colors pink and blue also act as symbols.  They’re symbolic of a person’s gender.  Anything can be made to have some sort of bigger symbolic meaning.  It all depends on the construction of it.

1 comment:

  1. It was interesting to me how you bring up the quote in Hanfler's text and how it just promotes gender contraction. With people thinking this way and different texts supporting this way of thinking, it is going to be really hard to change anytime soon. These articles are a good way to urge people to start thinking differently or even just get the idea in their heads. These texts can even start making people think questions like what you bring up right before your last paragraph. "Would I, along with other girls, be different if I had been given a lot of gender-neutral or even boyish toys?" This question is something that a lot of people should think about. Even if you can't relate to it, it gets you thinking about what a big difference social construction at a young age can make in a life. Maybe it would make a different for majority of children, but for those that it does make a difference, it would be huge. I would cause a lot less hurt and confusion for them to discover themselves at a younger age. Nice post!

    ReplyDelete