Let's not confuse sex and gender
Sharon Palmer’s last two Writer’s Group columns asserting, “Men should be allowed to be men and women should be allowed to be women,” is the most sexist remark I have read in context with her supporting claims as evidence - which is where I want to begin with basic definitions of sex and gender she has confused.
Sex is the designation given to an organism based on it reproduction organs and function. In the human species that in essence means if it possesses a penis, he’s a male, and if it’s got a vagina, she’s a female. It simply refers to biology and anatomy.
Gender refers to a set of qualities and behaviors expected from a female or male by society and cultural influences. Let me emphasize society and culture! That means gender roles are learned. It is affected by factors such as religion, education or economics but not an innate connection to the penis or vagina.
While an individual's sex does not change, without serious surgical intervention, gender roles are socially determined and can evolve over time.
It was the narrow branding of the past Palmer asserted as intrinsic gender characteristics that hindered the equal rights and status of women with adverse consequences - which whether she wants to admit it or not - affected life, family, socioeconomic status and health.
I find it absolutely appalling that Palmer would simply label women one way and men another. It is not “retro,” by any means. It is prehistoric, inasmuch as are claims from man’s beginnings dictating behavior. Using the caveman argument that men are simply left to the fate dealt to them by their testosterone levels, which make them “bigger, stronger and hair-ier,” to simply hunt, guard their territory an multiply is as asinine as the men who use that same defense to excuse their behavior of sleeping with multiple females. “It’s in my nature. I can’t help it.” Oh, yes, you can!
The fact is men can be incredible nurturers with unconditional compassion. Look at Jesus Christ. He’s the perfect example. The reality is that women can also be protectors and providers. Any 21st Century woman can prove that.
I am proud to be one of them and the roles I have chosen in my life that have given me great fulfillment and satisfaction. Some of those roles would probably be defined by Palmer to be geared more towards the male gender. Here’s my big question to that: So what?! How about accepting people for who they are and the choices they’ve made for a change. A traditional family with both parents fulfilling societal appropriate gender roles does not guarantee a happy, tranquil, perfect home. One size does not fit all!
I refuse to accept that working outside the home makes me less of a mother than a woman who decides to exert her work effort into being a stay-at-home mom. Both women are still working, after all. It’s because of the “revolt” Palmer sites that women now have the choice.
Choice, and respecting people’s choices whether you agree with them or not, is what the real underlying issue is. Palmer would have that cease from existence and women return to being barefoot and pregnant because that is what she defines women being “best” at. I say the more choices the better.
Palmer also said, “Men and women are so confused as to the roles that befit them best, it’s hard to keep it straight.” The confusion does not lie with people who are true to who they are, aside from their sex and what society would label them with gender. That constant state of perplexity only lies with individuals unwilling to accept people’s differences.
RSS feed
Comments
I completely agree with your comments. When I read the article, I couldn't believe it. I am a female and I love to solve problems, that why I like math so much, but according to her men are supposed to be "hard-wired to solve problems”. Would I just be an anomaly?
When she says, "Men and women are so confused as to the roles that befit them best, it’s hard to keep it straight." when she is trying to say women should stay at home but women can often benefit more people by taking a job better suited for them. Take me for example, I am not good at cooking and I hate cleaning but I love math, science, and solving problems so the job suited for me wouldn't be a “housewife” it would be something more into science. I could do a lot more in science then I could in being a housewife.
I am the best in my class in science (I scored the highest on the test we he had at the beginning of school) and I one of the best in my math class despite that I was moved up a grade to Geometry (I was still among the students that score 100% on our first test). These traits would not be very useful in homemakers, no, they would be useful in scientists, or other jobs Sharon Palmer seems to think belong to men.
I am thirteen years old and I have a life in front of me that I hope where I can do something more for my community then staying home and taking care of kids. Unless you wanted me to be miserable than give me an occupation where I get to do more then clean all day, give me a job where I can use my brain. I know there are other girls like me that do not want to stay at home and are looking for jobs that are better suited for them. We need to embrace that women aren't always the nuturing type and sometimes men are and the men aren't the only ones that like solving problems, women can be.
I hope her opinion only represents a brief minority of people since I find it ignorant. When you separate a species as vast and diverse as humans into two categories then naturally the people inside the groups will have different talents. Women will be different from other women and men will be different from other men.Gender shouldn’t have to be an issue of what occupation you hope to have.
Posted by: Emily Thomas | October 26, 2006 12:43 AM
I didn't get all that from Sarah's column. She certainly looks harmless.
Posted by: annegb | October 26, 2006 08:50 AM
Once is maybe harmless, but two columns on the topic is shoving it down my throat and something I won't swallow.
Posted by: Jennifer Weaver | October 27, 2006 04:05 PM
Well, I went over to her article and posted that we were talking about it here.
I think part of the problem is her point is too simplistically made. It's just not that black and white.
When I moved to my neighborhood 28 years ago, nobody worked. Maybe one or two. Gradually, mothers had to go to work and now there are almost no, none, count-em, stay at home moms.
They're not competing with anybody, Sharon, they need the money. It's so not about the sex or gender wars, it's about the wages in Iron County.
I realize that we only get a few words to make our points, but I think you just missed your own point altogether.
I don't see anything to be particularly upset about in this column, especially smart girls like you, Emily. You can see the difference and this complicated issue for what it is--worthy of lots of books, not a 500 word column. A lot more than "do we want to be like men if we have a brain."
Posted by: Arlene Ball | October 27, 2006 06:33 PM
The labor market is regulated by supply and demand just as any other comodity on the market is. However Government working for the interest of big corporations, initiated the incentitive for women to take jobs outside of the home. And it worked just as planned; for as laborers became more plentiful, the waiges became lower and lower. Until it became no longer a choice wether both a man and his wife worked outside of the home, but a necessity for survival. Because while waiges became lower, the big corporations products continued inflaiting. And look at where it has brought us today.
Posted by: Tracy Carman | October 28, 2006 09:42 PM
So, Tracy, you're saying that the government, working in tandem with big business, is in a conspiracy to keep wages down and force women out of the home?
Hmmm. . .perhaps. But my neighbors aren't thinking that hard. They're just trying to pay for their kids braces, not fight a feminist battle.
Posted by: Arlene Ball | October 29, 2006 09:24 AM
American workers are now in competition with third world workers who are paid 25 cents an hour for the same work. Exporting jobs is probably a more relevant issue to low wages than womens' presence in the workforce. Another problem is a soaring cost of living facilitated by speculation in real estate as investment rather than for use as homes. In migration of people from out of state to whom everything here including home prices is dirt cheap even now has skewed things and hit the local population particularly hard.. And the political and social climate in Southern Utah is not conducive to attracting quality jobs from the tech sector.
We've switched from an economy where an honest days work will pay the bills to one where dividends from investments make most of the money.
Posted by: Damien | October 30, 2006 09:42 AM