How Culture Constructs Gender DifferenceBiological models

How Culture Constructs Gender Difference
Biological models assume that biological sex determines
gender,
That biological differences lead to behavior differences, which
lead to social arrangements.
By this account, social inequalities are encoded into our
physiological composition.
That biological anomalies alone account for variation.
Biological researchers always assumed that gender difference
implied gender inequality because western notions of difference
do usually lead to and justify inequality.
However, some anthropologists argue that biological models
projected their western values onto other cultures.
That these models ignore the role of colonialism and the roles
of women in establishing gender differences in traditional
cultures.
Anthropological evidence offers a world of amazing diversity of
the cultural constructions of gender.
Yet some themes remain constant:
Virtually all societies manifest some amount of difference
between men and women.
Virtually all cultures exhibit some form of male domination,
despite variations in gender definitions.
Variations in Gender Definitions
Anthropologists have found far more variability in the
definitions of masculinity and femininity than any biologist
would have predicted.
Men possessed of similar levels of testosterone, with similar
brain structure and lateralization, seem to exhibit dramatically

different levels of aggression, violence, and, especially,
violence toward women.
Women with similar brains, hormones, and evolutionary
imperatives have widely different experiences of passivity,
PMS, and spatial coordination.
Margaret Meade’s Work
Meade examined three very different cultures in New Guinea.
In the Arapesh culture, all members were passive, gentle, and
emotionally warm.
Males and females were equally happy, trustful, and confident.
Men and women shared child rearing, both were “maternal” and
both discouraged aggression in boys and girls.
Both men and women were thought to be relatively equally
sexual.
In the Mundugamor culture (a tribe of head hunters and
cannibals), citizens viewed men and women as similar but
expected persons of both sexes to be violent and aggressive.
Women showed little “maternal instinct,” detested pregnancy
and nursing and could hardly wait to return to the serious
business of work.
There was violent rivalry between fathers and sons.
All people feared that they were being wronged by others.
In the Tchambuli culture (as in the US) men and women were
seen as very different.
It was a patrilineal culture and polygyny was accepted.
One sex was comprised primarily of nurturing and gossipy
consumers who spent their days dressing up and going
shopping.
The women were dominant, energetic, economic providers.

They fished (activity on which the entire culture depended).
They had real positions of power in the society.
Completely unadorned, they were business- like, controlled all
commerce and diplomacy of the culture, and were the initiators
of sexual relations.
Each culture believed that women and men were the way they
were because their biological sex determined their personality.
None of them believed women and men were the outcomes of
economic scarcity, military success, or cultural arrangements.
The Gendered Division of Labor
In almost every society, labor is divided by gender.
Functionalism maintains that sex-based division of labor arose
for the preservation of society: as society became increasingly
complex, there arose the need for 2 kinds of labor: hunting and
gathering.
This model assumes that because the sex-based division of labor
arose to meet social needs at one time, its preservation is an
evolutionary imperative and therefore necessary.
Today, the biological bases for sex-based division of labor have
been eroded.
In place of these foundations, though, lie centuries of social
customs and traditions that contribute to our gender ideologies
about what is appropriate for one sex and not the other.
Today’s gender-based division of labor is part of our culture,
not our biological constitutions.
Today, sex-based division of labor has outlived it social
usefulness and its physical imperatives, so it must be held in
place by something else: the power of one sex over another.

Theories of Gender Differentiation and Male Domination
Private Property and the Materialism of Male Domination
Engels assigned private property as the central factor in
determining division of labor by sex.
He suggested that 3 major institutions of modern society
emerged at roughly the same time-and all as a result of the
development of private property.
The birth of the capitalist economy created wealth that was
mobile and transferable. Capitalism meant private property,
which required the establishment of clear lines of inheritance.
This led to the new problem of sexual fidelity. If men were to
pass on their property to sons, they had to be sure their sons
were actually theirs.
The need to transmit inheritance across generations of men led
to the emergence of the traditional nuclear family, with
monogamous marriage and the sexual control of women.
To assure inheritance, patriarchs needed clear, binding laws that
were vigorously enforced. This required a centralized political
apparatus (the nation-state) to exercise sovereignty over local
and regional powers that might challenge these laws.
Warfare, Bonding, and Inequality
How does a culture create warriors who are fierce and strong?
Harris suggested the most effective answer is to reward
virtually all men with the services of women, excluding only the
most inadequate or cowardly men.
Warrior societies tend to practice female infanticide.
Harris suggests that keeping the female population significantly
lower than the male population increases competition among
males.
Warrior societies also tend to exclude women from the fighting
force (because their presence would reduce motivation and
upset the sexual hierarchy).
In this way, warfare leads to female subordination as well as
patrilinearity because the culture will need a resident core of

fathers and sons to carry out its military tasks.
Males controls the society’s resources and, as justification for
this, develop patriarchal religion as an ideology that legitimates
domination of men over women.
Descent theorists contribute that men, lacking the tie mothers
have with their children, seek to achieve connection (to the next
generation, to society, to their history) through hunting (or
fighting) with other men in groups.
Alliance theorists Levi-Strauss suggests that men turn women
into sex objects whose exchange (as wives) cements alliances
among men.
Determinants of Women’s Status
Under what conditions is women’s status improved and under
what conditions is it minimized?
The division of labor around child care.
The more that men participate in child care and the freer women
are from child rearing responsibility, the higher women’s status
tends to be.
Relationships between children and parents.
In cultures where fathers are relatively uninvolved, boys define
themselves in opposition to their mothers and other women and
are therefore prone to exhibitions of hyper masculinity, and to
fear and denigrate women as a way to display masculinity.
The more mothers and fathers share child rearing, the less men
belittle women.
Women’s control over property.
Women’s status is higher when they retain control over
property, both outside and after marriage.
All forms of spatial segregation between men and women are
associated with gender inequality.
Daphne Spain found that the cultures in which men developed

the most elaborate sex-segregated rituals were the cultures in
which women’s status was the lowest.
Sanday found that women have the highest levels of equality,
and the least frequency of rape when both genders contribute
about the same amounts to the food supply.
When men and women contribute about equally, men are more
involved in child care.
Ironically, when women contribute a lot or very little, their
status is also low.
Male dominance is lower when women and men work together.
Sex segregation of work is the strongest predictor of women’s
status.
Male dominance is more pronounced when men control the
political and ideological resources necessary to achieve the
goals of the culture.
Male dominance is “exacerbated by colonization”
The higher the percentage of marriageable men to marriageable
women, the lower women’s status.
All of these variables are also determinants of violence against
women.
The lower women’s status in a society, the higher the likelihood
of rape and other violence against women.
How Culture Constructs Gender Difference
Biological models assume that biological sex determines
gender,
That biological differences lead to behavior differences, which
lead to social arrangements.
By this account, social inequalities are encoded into our
physiological composition.
That biological anomalies alone account for variation.

Biological researchers always assumed that gender difference
implied gender inequality because western notions of difference
do usually lead to and justify inequality.
However, some anthropologists argue that biological models
projected their western values onto other cultures.
That these models ignore the role of colonialism and the roles
of women in establishing gender differences in traditional
cultures.
Anthropological evidence offers a world of amazing diversity of
the cultural constructions of gender.
Yet some themes remain constant:
Virtually all societies manifest some amount of difference
between men and women.
Virtually all cultures exhibit some form of male domination,
despite variations in gender definitions.
Variations in Gender Definitions
Anthropologists have found far more variability in the
definitions of masculinity and femininity than any biologist
would have predicted.
Men possessed of similar levels of testosterone, with similar
brain structure and lateralization, seem to exhibit dramatically
different levels of aggression, violence, and, especially,
violence toward women.
Women with similar brains, hormones, and evolutionary
imperatives have widely different experiences of passivity,
PMS, and spatial coordination.
Margaret Meade’s Work
Meade examined three very different cultures in New Guinea.
In the Arapesh culture, all members were passive, gentle, and
emotionally warm.
Males and females were equally happy, trustful, and confident.
Men and women shared child rearing, both were “maternal” and

both discouraged aggression in boys and girls.
Both men and women were thought to be relatively equally
sexual.
In the Mundugamor culture (a tribe of head hunters and
cannibals), citizens viewed men and women as similar but
expected persons of both sexes to be violent and aggressive.
Women showed little “maternal instinct,” detested pregnancy
and nursing and could hardly wait to return to the serious
business of work.
There was violent rivalry between fathers and sons.
All people feared that they were being wronged by others.
In the Tchambuli culture (as in the US) men and women were
seen as very different.
It was a patrilineal culture and polygyny was accepted.
One sex was comprised primarily of nurturing and gossipy
consumers who spent their days dressing up and going
shopping.
The women were dominant, energetic, economic providers.
They fished (activity on which the entire culture depended).
They had real positions of power in the society.
Completely unadorned, they were business- like, controlled all
commerce and diplomacy of the culture, and were the initiators
of sexual relations.
Each culture believed that women and men were the way they
were because their biological sex determined their personality.
None of them believed women and men were the outcomes of
economic scarcity, military success, or cultural arrangements.

The Gendered Division of Labor
In almost every society, labor is divided by gender.
Functionalism maintains that sex-based division of labor arose
for the preservation of society: as society became increasingly
complex, there arose the need for 2 kinds of labor: hunting and
gathering.
This model assumes that because the sex-based division of labor
arose to meet social needs at one time, its preservation is an
evolutionary imperative and therefore necessary.
Today, the biological bases for sex-based division of labor have
been eroded.
In place of these foundations, though, lie centuries of social
customs and traditions that contribute to our gender ideologies
about what is appropriate for one sex and not the other.
Today’s gender-based division of labor is part of our culture,
not our biological constitutions.
Today, sex-based division of labor has outlived it social
usefulness and its physical imperatives, so it must be held in
place by something else: the power of one sex over another.
Theories of Gender Differentiation and Male Domination
Private Property and the Materialism of Male Domination
Engels assigned private property as the central factor in
determining division of labor by sex.
He suggested that 3 major institutions of modern society
emerged at roughly the same time-and all as a result of the
development of private property.
The birth of the capitalist economy created wealth that was
mobile and transferable. Capitalism meant private property,
which required the establishment of clear lines of inheritance.
This led to the new problem of sexual fidelity. If men were to
pass on their property to sons, they had to be sure their sons
were actually theirs.

The need to transmit inheritance across generations of men led
to the emergence of the traditional nuclear family, with
monogamous marriage and the sexual control of women.
To assure inheritance, patriarchs needed clear, binding laws that
were vigorously enforced. This required a centralized political
apparatus (the nation-state) to exercise sovereignty over local
and regional powers that might challenge these laws.
Warfare, Bonding, and Inequality
How does a culture create warriors who are fierce and strong?
Harris suggested the most effective answer is to reward
virtually all men with the services of women, excluding only the
most inadequate or cowardly men.
Warrior societies tend to practice female infanticide.
Harris suggests that keeping the female population significantly
lower than the male population increases competition among
males.
Warrior societies also tend to exclude women from the fighting
force (because their presence would reduce motivation and
upset the sexual hierarchy).
In this way, warfare leads to female subordination as well as
patrilinearity because the culture will need a resident core of
fathers and sons to carry out its military tasks.
Males controls the society’s resources and, as justification for
this, develop patriarchal religion as an ideology that legitimates
domination of men over women.
Descent theorists contribute that men, lacking the tie mothers
have with their children, seek to achieve connection (to the next
generation, to society, to their history) through hunting (or
fighting) with other men in groups.
Alliance theorists Levi-Strauss suggests that men turn women
into sex objects whose exchange (as wives) cements alliances
among men.

Determinants of Women’s Status
Under what conditions is women’s status improved and under
what conditions is it minimized?
The division of labor around child care.
The more that men participate in child care and the freer women
are from child rearing responsibility, the higher women’s status
tends to be.
Relationships between children and parents.
In cultures where fathers are relatively uninvolved, boys define
themselves in opposition to their mothers and other women and
are therefore prone to exhibitions of hyper masculinity, and to
fear and denigrate women as a way to display masculinity.
The more mothers and fathers share child rearing, the less men
belittle women.
Women’s control over property.
Women’s status is higher when they retain control over
property, both outside and after marriage.
All forms of spatial segregation between men and women are
associated with gender inequality.
Daphne Spain found that the cultures in which men developed
the most elaborate sex-segregated rituals were the cultures in
which women’s status was the lowest.
Sanday found that women have the highest levels of equality,
and the least frequency of rape when both genders contribute
about the same amounts to the food supply.
When men and women contribute about equally, men are more
involved in child care.
Ironically, when women contribute a lot or very little, their
status is also low.
Male dominance is lower when women and men work together.
Sex segregation of work is the strongest predictor of women’s
status.
Male dominance is more pronounced when men control the

political and ideological resources necessary to achieve the
goals of the culture.
Male dominance is “exacerbated by colonization”
The higher the percentage of marriageable men to marriageable
women, the lower women’s status.
All of these variables are also determinants of violence against
women.
The lower women’s status in a society, the higher the likelihood
of rape and other violence against women.
SYD 3804-Question Development (QD) Assignment Handout
I. QD ASSIGNMENT DESCRIPTION AND SAMPLE
QUESTIONS:
A number of materials (text, films, lectures, etc.) are used in
this course to survey a Sociology of Gender. Each of these
materials contributes important perspective to an overall
understanding of the field. Each of these materials also is
required to complete assignments throughout the course.
One of the highest demonstrations of learning is the ability to
craft a good question about it.
1. You will create one multiple choice question from each
resource in each lesson. Within each lesson folder and on the
left-hand course menu, you will find the Question Development
link.
2. Questions can be of three types:
a. Definition of Key Terms
b. Summary of Key Ideas
c. Critical Thinking/Application Questions
3. You are required to submit at least one of each type of
question.
4. Please indicate the correct answer for your question.
Examples of each type of question follow:
EXAMPLE OF “DEFINITION…” QUESTION
1. Parents, attempting to curb their child’s nonconformity to

gender norms, might purchase a doll for their child but not a
dress. According to Rahilly, this could be termed:
a. gender binary
b. gender literacy
*c. gender hedging
d. playing along
EXAMPLE OF “SUMMARY…” QUESTION
2. According to Musto, children on the Sharks swim team
interacted during practice and competitions but not outside the
pool. Which of the following are among the reasons for this
self-segregation? (please mark all that apply)
*a. sex segregated locker rooms formally marked boys and girls
as different as they entered and exited the pool deck.
b. the children avoided being in situations where they might be
compared to the other sex.
*c. the crowded nature of the pool and deck created the risk of
heterosexual teasing.
*d. there was a lack of structure or rules upon which the
children could focus together during unsupervised times.
EXAMPLE OF “CRITICAL THINKING…” QUESTION
3.Five-year-old Kaley is really happy to be a girl, to wear
princess dresses, sing the princess songs, and see all the
princess movies. Kaley could be said to be:
a. gender variant
b. sex normative
*c. cisgender
d. transgender
II. QD ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE
LESSON 1
Please review the course materials for this lesson and create one

question from each of the following sources (3 questions):
1. Kaleidoscope, Chapter 1
2. Lecture 1
3. Lecture 2
LESSON 2
2. Lecture 3
3. Lecture 4
4. Video: “The Urgency of Intersectionality”
LESSON 3
2. Lecture 5
3. Video: “Tough Guise 2: Violence, Manhood, and American
Culture”
4. Video: “Transgender Basics: Gender Identity Project”
LESSON 4
2. Reading: “10 Ways the Beauty Industry tells You Being
Beautiful Means Being White”
3. Lecture 6
LESSON 5
2. Lecture 7
3. Video: “Killing Us Softly (2016)”
LESSON 6

2. Lecture 8
3. Video: “God Loves Uganda”
LESSON 7
2. Lecture 9
3. Lecture 10
5. Lecture 11
6. Lecture 12
LESSON 8
2. Lecture 13
4. Video: “TED Talk-Michael Kimmel: Why Gender Equality is
Good for Everyone-Men Included”
QD ASSIGNMENT RUBRIC
Variable Being Graded
Points Possible
12-15
9-12
6-9
3-6
1-3
Superior
Very good
Good

Needs Work
Poor Quality
Delivery of Questions
1. Grammar & spelling are outstanding.
2. Resource(s) from which the questions are drawn are clearly
stated.
3. Instructions of assignment were followed
a. one of each type of question
b. 1 question for each lesson resource
c. Multiple Choice
Points Possible: 15
Questions meet all of the criteria.
4 of criteria met.
2-3 of criteria met.
Few, if any criteria met or no submission
20-25
15-20
10-15
5-10
1-5
Superior
Very Good
Good
Needs Work
Poor Quality
Question Quality & Rigor

1. Questions and answers are clearly and unambiguously stated.
2. Questions measure the outcomes (e.g. to define, to
summarize, to think critically)
3. Questions avoid clues as to what the correct answer is.
4. When possible, avoid “all of the above,” “none of the above.”
5. Questions are indicative of knowledge in the subject.
Points Possible: 25
Questions meet all of the criteria.
4 of criteria met.
1 of criteria met.
Few, if any criteria met or no submission
Total Points Earned:
/40
Intersectionality
History
The term “intersectionality” was coined in 1989 by American
critical legal race scholar Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw (1989).
However, the central ideas of intersectionality have long
historic roots within and beyond the United States. Black
activists and feminists, as well as Latina, post-colonial, queer
and Indigenous scholars have all produced work that reveals the
complex factors and processes that shape human lives (Bunjun,
2010; Collins, 1990; Valdes, 1997; Van Herk, Smith, &
Andrew, 2011).

Defining Intersectionality
Intersectionality promotes an understanding of human beings as
shaped by the interaction of different social locations (e.g.,
‘race’/ethnicity, Indige-neity, gender, class, sexuality,
geography, age, disability/ability, migration status, religion).
These interactions occur within a context of connected systems
and structures of power (e.g., laws, policies, state governments
and other political and economic unions, religious institutions,
media). Through such processes, interdependent forms of
privilege and oppression shaped by colonialism, imperialism,
racism, homophobia, ableism and patriarchy are created.
Key Assumptions
Human lives cannot be explained by taking into account single
categories, such as gender, race, and socio-economic status.
People’s lives are multi-dimensional and complex. Lived
realities are shaped by different factors and social dynamics
operating together.
When analyzing social problems, the importance of any
category or structure cannot be predetermined; the categories
and their importance must be discovered in the process of
investigation.
Relationships and power dynamics between social locations and
processes (e.g., racism, classism, heterosexism, ableism,
ageism, sexism) are linked. They can also change over time and
be different depending on geographic settings.
People can experience privilege and oppression simultaneously.
This depends on what situation or specific context they are in.

5. Multi-level analyses that link individual experiences to
broader structures and systems are crucial for revealing how
power relations are shaped and experienced.
6. Scholars, researchers, policy makers, and activists must
consider their own social position, role and power when taking
an intersectional approach. This “reflexivity,” should be in
place before setting priorities and directions in research, policy
work and activism.
7. Intersectionality is explicitly oriented towards
transformation, building coalitions among different groups, and
working towards social justice.
Principles of Intersectionality
Intersecting Categories
From an intersectionality perspective, human lives cannot be
reduced to single categories, and policy analysis cannot assume
that any one social category is most important for understanding
people’s needs and experiences.
intersectionality conceptualizes social categories as intera cting
with and co-constituting one another to create unique social
locations that vary according to time and place. These
intersections and their effects are what matters in an
intersectional analysis
Multi-level Analysis
Intersectionality is concerned with understanding the effects

between and across various levels in society, including macro
(global and national-level institutions and policies), meso or
intermediate (provincial and regional-level institutions and
policies), and micro levels (community-level, grassroots
institutions and policies as well as the individual or ‘self’).
Attending to this multi-level dimension of intersectionality also
requires addressing processes of inequity and differentiation
across levels of structure, identity and representation
The significance of and relationships between these various
levels of structure and social location are not predetermined.
Rather, they reveal themselves through the process of
intersectional research and discovery.
Power
Attention to power highlights that: i) power operates at
discursive and structural levels to exclude some types of
knowledge and experience (Foucault, 1977); ii) power shapes
subject positions and categories (e.g., ‘race’) (e.g. racialization
and racism); and iii) these processes operate together to shape
experiences of privilege and penalty between groups and within
them (Collins, 2000).
From an intersectional perspective, power is relational. A
person can simultaneously experience both power and
oppression in varying contexts, at varying times (Collins, 1990).
These relations of power include experiences of power over
others, but also that of power with others (power that involves
people working together)
Within an intersectionality-based policy analysis (or IBPA), the
focus is not just on domination or marginalization, but on the
intersecting processes by which power and inequity are
produced, reproduced and actively resisted

Reflexivity
Reflexivity is the fact of someone being able to examine their
own feelings, reactions, and motives
One way that intersectionality pays attention to power is
through reflexivity. Reflexivity acknowledges the importance of
power at the micro level of the self and our relationships with
others, as well as at the macro levels of society. Reflexive
practice recognizes multiple truths and a diversity of
perspectives, while giving extra space to voices typically
excluded from policy ‘expert’ roles
Time and Space
time and space are not static, fixed or objective dimensions
and/or processes, but are fluid, changeable and experienced
through our interpretations, senses and feelings, which are, in
turn, heavily conditioned by our social position/location, among
other factors
How we experience and understand time and space depends on
when and where we live and interact
It is within these dimensions of time and space that different
kinds of knowledge are situated, our understandings of the
world are constructed, and the social orders of meaning are
made
Moreover, privileges and disadvantages, including intersecting
identities and the processes that determine their value, change
over time and place
The Diversity of Knowledges
Given the focus in intersectionality-based policy analysis
(IBPA) on addressing inequities and power, knowledge
generated through an IBPA can and should include the

perspectives and knowledges of peoples who are typically
excluded in policy analysis.
IBPA expands understandings of what is typically constituted as
“evidence” by recognizing a diversity of knowledge, par adigms
and theoretical perspectives, such as knowledge generated from
qualitative or quantitative research; empirical or interpretive
data; and Indigenous knowledges
Social Justice
Theories of social justice frequently challenge inequities at
their source and require people to question social and power
relations.
Intersectionality strongly emphasizes social justice (Grace,
2011). Approaches to social justice differ based in whether they
focus on the redistribution of goods (Rawls, 1971) or on social
processes (Young, 1990); however, all approaches share a
concern with achieving equity (Sen, 2006)
Equity
The term equity is not to be confused with equality. For
example, where inequality may refer to any measurable
difference in outcomes of interest, inequities exist where those
differences are unfair or unjust.
Closely tied to the social justice principle of intersectionality,
equity is concerned with fairness. As expressed by Braveman
and Gruskin (2003), equity in public policy exists when social
systems are designed to equalize outcomes between more and
less advantaged groups.

References
Olena Hankivsky, PhD (April 2014) Intersectionality 101. The
Institute for Intersectionality Research & Policy, SFU.
Social Constructionist Perspectives on Gender
Sex and/or Gender?
There is no firm consensus on the appropriate use of the terms
“Sex” and “Gender” among gender scholars.
Some reject the term “sex” altogether and refer only to
“gender.”
Others use the terms almost interchangeably
Others employ both concepts and recognize a clear distinction
between them.
Most social and biological scientists now agree that the
biological or genetic aspects of maleness and femaleness cannot
be understood as fully separate and distinct from the social
processes and practices that give meaning to these
characteristics.
But researchers disagree over exactly how this interaction
should be understood, especially on the degree to which they
see sex as socially constructed.
Some believe that gender is not grounded in any biological or
genetic reality.
The body is “more or less neutral surface or landscape on which
a social symbolism is painted.”
Many believe that, first we have social understandings of what

men and women are, or should be, and then we perceive sex
differences.
The Social Construction of Sex & Sex Category
Males and females share many characteristics
Both normally have 23 pairs of chromosomes and they are
warm-blooded; they develop from the same undifferentiated
stem cells; each has the same hormones as the other
In other respects male and female bodies differ
Chromosomal differences
External and internal sexual structures
Hormonal production
Other physiological differences
Secondary sex characteristics
The claim that sex marks a distinction between two physically
and genetically discrete categories of people is called sexual
dimorphism.
Sociologists also use the terms sex assignment or sex category
to describe the processes by which social meanings are attached
to biological sex.
Sex assignment refers to the process – occurring at birth or even
prenatally – by which people are identified as male or female
(their sex category)
The “Natural” Attitude Toward Gender
Hawkesworth (1997) identified several taken for granted
assumptions about sex category, which form the foundation of
what he calls the “natural attitude toward gender.”
The beliefs that there are 2 and only 2 sexes/genders

The belief that sex/gender is invariant
The belief that genitals are the essential signs of sex/gender
That the male/female dichotomy is natural
That being masculine or feminine is not a matter of choice
That all individuals can and must be classified as masculine or
feminine
Intersexed Persons: The Ultimate Sex/Gender Conundrum
Researchers estimate that about 2% of live births are to infants
that cannot easily be categorized as male or female. These
individuals are called intersexuals.
Intersexuality has come to be defined as a conditional needing
medical intervention – as a “correctable birth defect.”
In these cases, doctors perform complicated surgery to provide
an infant with “normal” genitals (ones that match a particular
sex category)
Some intersexed persons have spoken out against this practice.
Members of the Intersex Society of North America
(ISNA)believe that surgery should be a choice made when the
intersexed person is old enough to give informed consent.
ISNA also advocates for people’s right to remain intersexed and
to gain social acceptance for this status
They reject the belief that everyone must fall into 2 sex
categories, and they envision a society where genital variation
is accepted.
Sex Assignment, Sex Category, & Gender: How do they work?
Kessler and McKenna (1978)
Suggest that, while assignment to a sex category occurs first at
birth (even prenatally), people continue to categorize one
another as males or females throughout life.
However, adults typically lack the kind of information about

others’ bodies that is used to assign sex category at birth. In
particular, since clothing usually hides people’s genitals from
the view of others, people rely on other “markers,” such as hair,
body type, voice, dress, mannerisms, and behavior.
What counts as markers depends heavily upon cultural
circumstances and thus varies across time, place, and social
group. As views on what are acceptable ways to express oneself
as male or female change, so do markers of sex category.
The use of markers, and their cultural relativity, underscores the
idea that assignment to sex categories relies heavily on social
criteria.
Yet, regardless of what criteria are used to assign sex category,
there is none that works in every circumstance to distinguish
males from females. If you consider a list of markers, there are
none that always and without exception differentiate males from
females.
This implies that sex distinctions are not based on any fully
“objective” characteristics of human beings; rather, they are
themselves social constructions. This means that it is impossible
to conceive of sex apart from gender because, rather than sex
being the basis for gender distinctions; this view claims that
gender is the basis for distinctions based on sex.
Introduction to the Study of Gender
Defining Sex & Gender
Sex is not a dichotomy
During the first 6 weeks of uterine development, human fetuses
of both genetic sexes possess sex tissues which have the

potential to develop into either male or female sex structures.
Most people talk as if women and men are dichotomous
hormonally, as evidenced by male behavior being referred to as
“testosterone laden” or female behavior as “estrogen overload.”
In fact, all three sex hormones (including progesterone) exist in
the bloodstreams of all women and men.
Not all women and men have the secondary sex characteristics
thought typical for their sex.
Biologically, sex is understood to be a continuum whereon the
reproductive structures , hormones, and physical features range
somewhere between two end points.
Sex is not fixed
We now have the surgical ability to change a person’s genital
and secondary sex characteristics.
Some people have persuasively argued that sex is a social
construct and not a biological given.
Defining Gender
Gender used to be seen as the psychological, social, and cultural
aspects of maleness and femaleness.
This definition was too narrow because the natural and social
cannot be separated cleanly. They are not discrete realms of
human existence. It is also problematic because gender is seen
as sets of traits or behavioral dispositions that people possess
based on their assignment to a sex category.
Many consider gender and its components (gender roles, gender
norms, etc.) vary along a continuum of masculinity and
femininity and that gender should be thought of as being
independent of ones’ biological sex.
Yet others define gender a variable among intersections of
oppression (e.g. bell hooks refers to this dynamic as “White

supremacist, capitalist, heteronormative patriarchy.”).
Therefore, it cannot be thought of in a vacuum, or even a
continuum.
Wharton’s (2005) definition: “a system of social practices
which creates and maintains gender distinctions and organizes
relations of inequality on the basis of these distinctions.” 3
features of this def. are important:
gender is as much a process as a fixed state. Gender is being
continually reproduced. Gender is being enacted or “done” and
not merely expressed.
gender is not simply a characteristic of people, but occurs at all
levels of social structure. It is the idea of gender as a “system”
of practices that are far-reaching, interlocked, and that exist
independently of individuals. Gender is thus a multidimensional
phenomenon.
this def. refers to its importance in organizing relationships of
inequality. The important thing to remember is that, as a
principle of social organization, gender is one critical
dimension upon which social resources are distributed.
Why does a study of sex & gender matter?
Because it shapes the identities and behavioral dispositions of
individuals. Gender enters into how people see themselves, the
ways they behave, and how they view others. Gender identity
may be among the most influential in shaping the standards
people hold for themselves.
It shapes social interaction. Social interaction is an important
setting in which gender emerges and is enacted.
Gender organizes social institutions, including the “rules” that

constitute some areas of social life (e.g. education, sports,
religion, as well as marriage, parenthood, and family) Many
institutions can’t be understood without attention to the ways
they embody and reinforce gender meanings.
Reciprocally, we cannot fully understand the social world
without attending to gender; and we can’t understand gender
without understanding the social world.
How to deal with a study of sex & gender
The social and physical sciences have produced a staggering
amount of research on sex & gender.
As this research has become known, so, too, have the number of
theoretical and conceptual approaches to the study of it.
This multiplicity of views and perspectives doesn’t have to
result in chaos. The field’s conceptual and theoretical diversity
can be a source of enrichment, rather than fragmentation
(remember, sociology raises more questions than it answers).
In order to receive the benefits of this diversity, however,
students of gender must be skilled at communicating across
perspectives, identifying points of overlap, convergence, and
opposition.
But, because they focus attention on different aspects of the
social world and ask different kinds of questions, the interpl ay
of these diverse perspectives and methods helps facilitate the
production of knowledge. And the most useful sociological
knowledge is produced collectively, through dialogue and
debate, rather than self-contained isolation.
Sex/Gender bias in the social and physical sciences

There are several ways in which science has historically ignored
women
Until very recently (and even still, to a large extent), science
has been an all male club-women weren’t welcome. So it wasn’t
until very recently that women began contributing their own
varying knowledge to the study of ANYTHING scientific.
In early 1900’s science, women-as a species- were thought less
variable among themselves than men were. All women were
considered pretty much alike, but men were thought to range
enormously in their talents and defects. This argument was used
to explain why men were superiorly distinguished from women
and had a higher intelligence than women.
When scientists investigate a stereotyped “masculine” behavior
(e.g. aggression), they are less likely to include girls and
women as participants.
Historically, the results of research using boys or men would
likely be generalized and discussed as “individuals are…,”
while research based on girls and women was likely to be
generalized only to their sex. Researchers have typically issued
conclusions about individuals in general, when in fact only one
group, typically white, middle-class men, have been observed.
Until very recently, women were rarely the subjects of any type
of research, and activities heavily dominated by women (e.g.
housework) received little attention. Sociology reflected a male
bias, generating knowledge most applicable to men’s lives
rather than to the lives of women and to society defined more
broadly. Even in the physical sciences, virtually all of the
animal-learning research on rats has been performed on male
rats.
As an early “fix” to these problems, sociology reformed its

biased ways and added women to the mix – the “add women and
stir approach.”
Courses on the sociology of women were seen to help
counterbalance the rest of sociology, which was still viewed as
essentially about men.
Also, a problem with this is that “gender” researchers and
teachers focused on women and femininity, to the sole exclusion
of men and masculinity.
Also, much more was written about the differences between men
and women than to variations among men and women. The
overemphasis on differences supported the stereotype that
women and men are “opposites” and that the male is normative
and the female is a deviation from the norm.
Overall, the underlying assumption was that sociology as a
discipline could add new knowledge about gender without
having to rethink some of its own key assumptions about the
world.
Ultimately, it is insufficient to simply add knowledge about
gender to existing sociological literatures. Social scientists
today a focusing on rethinking taken-for-granted sociological
concepts and ideas, with the aim of transforming them.
Recent developments in the study of sex & gender
There is a growing literature on men and masculinity
There is a growing recognition of variations among men and
among women, resulting in increased attention to
MASCULINITIES and FEMININITIES.
The acknowledgement of the multiplicity of these concepts is
accompanied by a recognition that some forms of masculinity or

femininity are more social valued than others. These are framed
in relations of domination and subordination.
The field has also been increasingly concerned with the
intersection of sex/gender and other bases of stratification, like
race, ethnicity, religion, class, and sexual orientation.
This research challenges the notion that sex/gender is something
you can study in a vacuum, outside relationship of it to other
social forces.
Some postmodernists suggest that this diversity within and
among genders makes our ability to conceive of –and draw any
conclusions about- “gender” extremely problematic
They assert that men and women see the world as particular
individuals, shaped by unique forces that shape unique selves.
This perspective raises the question of whether the concept of
gender is a fiction, a product of language rather than social
relations and organization.
Three overarching frameworks in the study of sex/gender:
Individualist – focusing on individuals’ personalities, traits, and
emotions
Interactionist – gender cannot be understood as an identity or
set of personality traits, but must be seen in the context of the
interactions between people
Institutional – gender is embedded in the structures and
practices of organizations and social institutions, even though
they appear to be gender neutral.
These frameworks each ask different kinds of questions and
draw different kinds of conclusions

Sociology of Gender
Collage Assignment Instructions
Think about the topics/concepts reviewed in the course so far.
Here are some questions to get you started: Is there something
that draws you to it? Is there a concept/issue/theory/topic/etc.
that resonates with you? Would you like to clarify something
about the concept/topic/theory? Do you want to know more
about a theorist/topic/etc.? Is there something in the
environment that relates to the
topics/concepts/issues/perspectives/etc. in sociology of gender
that “screams at you?” Do you want to put theoretical
information into a context? Are you noticing something you
hadn’t before because of something you learned in sociology of
gender? Brainstorm these thoughts with your group members
(you might want to take notes) and search the internet and your
environment for photos/paintings/images with which to make a
collage of your thoughts about the concept/topic/theory/research
findings/etc. you chose. Please use no less than 12 pictures in
your collage. Please also remember to provide a citati on (http://
is fine) for each picture.
Write a one-page/double spaced explanation of your collage.
Discuss what your group was interested in why (your notes
would be helpful here). Define and discuss the main points of
the concept/topic/issue/etc. you have depicted. Connect the
dots. What did you learn? Why is it important? Please utilize
these instructions and the Collage Assignment Rubric to help
you complete the assignment.
COLLAGE ASSIGNMENT RUBRIC
Variable(s) Assessed

Points Possible
135-150
120-135
105-120
90-105
0-90
Superior
Very good
Good
Needs Work
Poor Quality
1. Demonstrates Knowledge of sociology of gender
a. Pictures and written description clearly illuminate (by
definition, example, etc.) the
topic/concept/issue/perspective/etc. under focus.
b. A variety of resources/ examples are used to communicate
relevant information.
2. Demonstrates creativity/ originality in approach to
topic/perspective/ concept/etc.
a. A variety of resources/ examples are used to communicate all
relevant information.
3. Demonstrates ability to clearly communicate perspectives/
concepts/issues/etc. in writing
a. Written description clearly illuminates (by definition,
example, etc.) the topic/perspective/issue/concept under focus.
b. Spelling is exceptional. Writing is grammatically correct in
every way (except when purposeful and germane to the subject).
c. Images used in the collage and their placement reflect a high
degree of student creativity display.
Assignment meets all of the criteria.
4 of criteria met.

1 or no criteria met or no submission
Total Points:
/150

How Culture Constructs Gender DifferenceBiological models

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to How Culture Constructs Gender DifferenceBiological models

Similar to How Culture Constructs Gender DifferenceBiological models (20)

More from PazSilviapm

More from PazSilviapm (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

How Culture Constructs Gender DifferenceBiological models