Is gender a behaviour?

[Victoriapestis01]

I am struggling. I’m reading Sheila Jeffreys on queer politics - with much gratitude to those here who recently pointed me in her direction.

I think her analysis is as follows.

‘Gender’ is a pattern of behaviour, tradionally adoped by each of the two biological sexes, that reflects and enacts and perpetuates male dominance and female subordination. So, the ‘male gender’ is male dominant behaviour; the ‘female gender’ is female subordinate behaviour.

Have I got this right?

I appreciate this sounds a bit theoretical, but I want to pursue it as it seems to have such radical implications- on this analysis of gender as dominant/subordinate behaviour patterns, there clearly can’t be more than two genders. And nor can they be somehow combined - one cannot be simultaneously dominant and subordinate in one’s behaviour, in that the two concepts - dominant and subordinate behaviours- are mutually antagonistic.

Where does the word ‘gender’ even come from? When was it first used? It seems so misleading and unhelpful as a way of describing behaviour patterns, ie activities, as opposed to an intrinsic, immutable state of being, ie a characteristic.

It seems so misleading and unhelpful as a way of describing behaviour patterns, ie activities, as opposed to an intrinsic, immutable state of being, ie a characteristic.

But that's precisely the point! As used in old-school 2nd wave feminism and social sciences, it's intended to draw attention to the fact that "gender" - the set of behaviours, roles, occupations, dress patterns, etc. that a given society ascribes to one biological sex or the other - is not intrinisic, but rather socially constructed and to a large extent arbitrary (and variable from one culture to another - e.g. Medieval England, weaving is "men's work", Medieval Iceland, weaving is "women's work").

According to my anthropologist mate, it's not entirely arbitrary - the gender roles that show some stability across cultures (hunting big game as opposed to smaller prey, handling big draft animals, being members of the "warrior class" in a given society, as "men's work"; child-rearing as "women's work") typically do have some link to biological dimorphism (men are bigger and stronger on average; women are the sex who can breast feed hence start out with the bulk of the childcare, then it seems "natural" for them to continue). But other tasks - weaving in my example - vary from one culture to another. Though even then there are varied attitudes to breaking gender norms - e.g. the widow who harnesses up a pair of oxen to plough a field - is the social reaction "odd, but needs must" or "stone the witch"? Gender can be very strongly policed in some societies and weakly policed in others.

The etymology, from Greek genos and from verbs meaning to generate or deliver (as in giving birth), also common root with gynè, woman (gynecology, generate, lots of words with this root), then used to describe species or class or humans or animals sharing certain characteristics, and in grammar as well (masculine, feminine and neutral gender). AFAIK its use as synonymous with sex is recent, and as an alternative to it even more (post-modern gender theory and assorted bullshit).

Hi fermats and thank you. Yes, sorry, what I was trying to say in the last para (badly) was that the word ‘gender’ sounds to me as though it is describing a thing, a characteristic. An entity. Not ‘a set of behaviours’, which is really what it seems to be.

I wonder whether originally, in anthropology, the term used was ‘gender roles’, and somehow this changed to ‘gender’ - giving the implication of a ‘real thing out there’ rather than ‘a set of behaviours or roles’. (This is really just a comment on the way in which words can influence thought in unhelpful ways- I’d be interested to know what the etymological roots of the word are.)

Do you think what I’ve said about Sheila Jeffreys’ views is an accurate reflection of them? About dominance? I’m not good at theory.

Cross post about etymology!

Before the word gender was applied to behaviour or culture, it was used for talking about grammar. So things like "masculine" words which in reality have nothing to do with biological concerns or reproduction, it's purely convention.

It was borrowed to talk about associations things that were attached culturally to biological sex, but aren't themselves intrinsically related to biological sex. In practice it's a little looser than that, as was pointed out above, some things have some connection but there is still an overlaid cultural element. An ideal example is saying pink is for girls, it's totally arbitrary, what makes it "for grls" is only that we, in our minds, associate it with femininity.

Personally I think the analysis that says this is inherently oppressive and only cultural, and should all be done away, with is wrong. But that's really neither here nor there.

You are quite right, if there is no sex binary, there is no such thing as gender. It's only because of it's association with binary sex that gender exists as a category. If you imagine that we instead reproduced asexually and so no sexually dimorphic, the idea of masculinity or femininity could not exist in culture either. Fundamentally those things, gender itself, are the social-cultural response to our sexed bodies. If we were asexual we'd just have different individual preferences.

Sheila has said at various meetings she thinks we should stop using the term gender altogether, and instead use the term sex roles as this is more accurate, and considering the way the word gender is being used by TRA’s/MRA’s she thinks it is unwise to continue using it.

Sheila is saying that the sex roles (gender roles) that each sex are socialised into are at root to ensure females behave submissively (“feminine”), and so that males can continue to dominate society (though they do also include arbitrary things such preferences of colours, hair styles etc). For example, if women are socialised to be submissive from girlhood, men do not have to use obvious force to make females compliant, so societal male dominance (patriarchy) and female submission (oppression) then seem like “the natural order of things” and are accepted as inevitable (unfortunately, even by some women themselves). Sheila knows that men also police other males, if a boy/man is considered “feminine” then he is thought to be lowering himself into the submissive class, men then want him ejected from the category of men, as they do not want to be associated with submission. This is why men want to dump feminine men into the woman category and don’t have a problem with doing so.

Sheila (and other feminists) have also written extensively about how the sex roles (gender) are also related to sexual relations. For example, how men have controlled the narrative around sex (sexual relations), and how men want women to eroticise being submissive, as if females eroticise their own submission then they are not likely to feel motivated to organise and fight against a male dominated society (patriarchy). This is where 3rd wave “feminism” comes in, which claims that being submissive is sexy, so we get all the BDSM is liberating, porn can be feminist etc. It also says if you don’t like being submissive (“feminine”) then you can choose to be a man or a in-between sex. This obviously only benefits men in a systemic sense, though a small number of women may benefit somewhat if they “pass” as men, which is why it is so popular with men, and why many of us do not see 3rd wave feminism as feminist at all. As for the in-between sex choice, they will be seen by men as either men or women and treated accordingly, so that is not a viable way of opting out.

Indeed, prominent male TRA’s have written books claiming that feminists like Sheila are demonising “femininity”, they argue that we should all just value “femininity” more, rather than fighting to abolish sex roles (gender). We know that AGP’s are often excited by the idea of being sexually submissive, and can view women as the physical embodiment of submission. So it is not difficult to see why such males would argue that femininity/submission should be valued more in society. (Sheila has also written and given lectures extensively about this.)

John Money is credited with coining the term gender role, here is some background on it: 4thwavenow.com/tag/john-money/

Stopthisnow
Great post!

Like Qcng said, great post Stop. In particular:

Indeed, prominent male TRA’s have written books claiming that feminists like Sheila are demonising “femininity”, they argue that we should all just value “femininity” more, rather than fighting to abolish sex roles (gender).

This is a prime example of the way genderist ideology takes genuine parts of feminism and twists them out of all recognition.

What feminists have actually been saying for years is that many of the occupations society delegates to women (typically "caring" whether low paid in the case of nurses, care-workers, childcare workers, or not paid at all in the case of SAH-motherhood) are undervalued by society. This is true. Feminists argue that the work women do should be properly valued. This of course is entirely right.

TRAs are trying to twist this into "femininity" (the performance of infantilised, little-girl, breathy-voiced, submissive sex stereotype drawn from the worst of porn/Barbara Cartland) should be valued. This on the other hand is a complete pile of horse shit.

But utterly typical of the whole crapshow. TRAs want the "womanface" parody that is "femininity". They don't want the hard graft of thankless wiping of other people's arses that is so many real women's genuine lived experience.