I recently took the political compass test and found out that I am a Left Libertarian. For those interested, I am “exactly” -4.00 (Left) and -5.23 (Social Libertarian). If my result were superimposed on the already existing images on politicalcompass.org, I would be in the same quadrant as Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and The Dalai Lama. Does that mean I am destined to be some famous, influential, and wise leader? I hope so, not necessarily, but most probably not.

Now why am I starting this week’s post with my political views? It’s simple really. It provides me, and consequently you, with some sort of understanding to the foundations/roots of my personal beliefs. Social issues (i.e. gender) are very much political, so by revealing my political stance, or orientation if you will, it should help explain a lot about my beliefs and what I consider to be important.

Regarding the Biblical references to homosexuality, I cannot stress enough how important context is when dealing with this issue. Without context, any situation or issue would be missing an important aspect to its understanding and would undermine any inherent value. Let’s take behavior for example. During childhood, having an imaginary friend is not considered to be too much out of the norm. However, if an adult were to have an imaginary friend, they would be seen as “weird,” possibly intellectualized as a schizophrenic, or some sort of deviant from the norm. In these two instances, the constant is the imaginary friend, and the context is the stage in life with which they have this friend. Also, it would be odd for a person to burst into tears sitting in the middle of an ongoing class, but it is perfectly reasonable for a person to burst into tears during a funeral. Without this context, it is impossible, and foolish, to try to pin some sort of judgment to either situation. The same goes for the Biblical scriptures. It is very dangerous and foolish to apply scriptures that were written centuries ago to society today, especially if they were exercised at face value. While I realize that it is virtually impossible for two individuals to have the exact same interpretation of the same text, in this case, I believe that one interpretation is not necessarily more “right” than another, but there are definitely wrong ways of interpreting the text.

Personally, I believe that the purpose of the Bible, or any religious text for that matter, is for hope, faith, and a guide. My good friend Galileo put it best and this quote is his challenging of the Church's stance regarding the motion of the Earth and how the geocentric model was inaccurate. He said (and I agree with this statement wholeheartedly) that “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go.” Although the conclusion of that statement is specific to astronomy, I think it is perfectly feasible and legitimate to apply that statement to any physical phenomenon on Earth, not just to scientific studies, but to social and political issues as well.

In what ways are gender roles still restricted today?  In what ways have they improved since this drawing was made? Your response need not be restricted to women.

So I’m taking a sociology class. I’m only mentioning this because it compliments this class well. A lot of the terminologies and ideas that we have learned so far help me place a lot of the issues we have discussed so far. Having a very scientific background, the structure and “labeling” helps me categorize everything and appreciate any sort of causal relationship.

Sociology, specifically when discussing groups and group dynamics, presents the idea of the primary and the secondary group. In a nutshell, the primary group consists of individuals who have a meaningful, pervasive, and intimate relationship with the individual i.e. family members and close and/or intimate friends. On the other hand, the secondary group is made up of the individuals who have a superficial, fleeting, and one dimensional relationship with the individual and examples of these people are, work acquaintances, students who are in the same class etc. What’s interesting about this binary is that time, and increasing amounts of interaction, causes the overall secondary group to form littler primary groups, or cliques. Ironically, another interesting “finding” is that the most influential group in how one acts is not the primary, but the secondary. Individuals are more concerned about fitting into the overall population and perpetuating expectations placed on them, than pleasing the individuals in their primary group.

On another related note, within these groups exists another discrete idea: in versus out group. Briefly, the in group consists of the individuals that you remain loyal to, share a common interest with, whereas the out group are the people with which you antagonize. In short, in group = “we,” out group = “they.”

I bring these two dichotomies up because it somewhat explains the perpetuation and insistence of gender roles. I notice my own hypocrisy in that I am aware of the many pitfalls associated with gender and consider myself to be very open minded, yet in order to please the “secondary group,” and to avoid being shunned/labeled, my actions are defined by my gender expectations (to a certain extent.) While I truly believe that the North American/Western society has since opened its collective mind regarding gender roles, issues, and expectations, I think that many individuals still, whether consciously or subconsciously, let society (secondary group) dictate their actions. It is only when one is in the primary group that allows them to “let their hair down” (probably a bad choice of idiom.) 

Regarding the in versus out group, this idea helps explain the perpetuation of “double standards.” This notion of double standards is prevalent when it comes to gender. In the workplace, aggressive men are perceived as assertive but aggressive women are seen as pushy. A quiet man will be said to “know when to keep his mouth shut” whereas a woman would be considered too timid.

So, how are gender roles still restricted today? Well, I indirectly answered it already but to put it bluntly, I think gender roles and expectations are still as restrictive today as in previous time periods BUT a lot of the negative assumptions have been revealed and eradicated. Obviously there are still many kinks to work out (e.g. double standards) but overall there has been great progress. Nowadays, it is not unusual to witness males take on certain roles and responsibilities once exclusive to females, while women are not considered deviant or crazy for pointing out the blatant unequal division of power.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that Jane Eyre and Edward Rochester’s relationship to be very reminiscent of, if not, an “anti-romantic comedy.” (I am already sensing some not so pleasant reactions to this and Bronte is probably rolling over in her grave somewhere R.I.P.) I quickly searched on Google to see if I could find a more appropriate, and already established, genre but came up short. So I will briefly try to define what I mean by “anti-romantic comedy.” Like romantic comedies, it follows the lives of two “destined” lovers through their initial meeting, their trials and tribulations as a couple, inevitable separation, and then resolution leading to a happily ever after. However, it is “anti-romantic comedy” in the sense that unlike romcoms, Jane Eyre is hardly light-hearted but is much more dramatic. When I think of Jane Eyre as a “love story,” the words dark, gothic, grim, and somber accompany my thoughts.

The specific scene that I will discuss is Eyre’s and Rochester’s “meet-cute,” and the immediate events/days that followed the incident. Wikipedia defines a “meet-cute” as “the contrived encounter of two potential romantic partners in unusual or comic circumstances, a comic situation contrived by the filmmakers entirely in order to bring them together. During a "meet-cute", scriptwriters often create a humorous sense of awkwardness between the two potential partners by depicting an initial clash of personalities or beliefs, an embarrassing situation, or by introducing a comical misunderstanding or mistaken identity situation.” For the two characters, their meet cute was the slipping of Rochester’s horse on an ice puddle.

This scene furthers the reader’s perception of gender roles with regards to Mr. Rochester’s actions, but challenges them when it comes to Jane.

Mr. Rochester depicts his “manliness” by refusing to have Jane call for help and also by his insistence of Jane to leave him after he had gotten back on his feet, despite the fact that he was in great pain when he tried to move.  He continues to assert his power/dominance (characteristics typical of masculinity as defined by society) during his first conversations with Jane and even prior to their conversation after their initial meeting. With regards to his “daughter,” despite having assumed the role of guardian of Adele, it is obvious that he is not interested in raising her at all, past providing a roof, food, and any other necessities. His only demonstration of “sensitivity” is his giving of ‘cadeaus’ to her, but what he gives further perpetuates his beliefs of gifts appropriate to her gender, delicate items of “porcelain… ivory, and waxen contents.” (156) Finally, the way he treats Jane initially in their beginning conversations appears more of apathy and out of entertainment, not necessarily respect. He tells her what to do, in such a way that could be seen as aggressive and dominant.

On the other hand, Jane subtly disrupts her gender roles from a contemporary perspective. The fact that Jane remains truthful and stands her ground during her interrogation is evidence to this. Her bluntness when Rochester “attacks” is also an exemplification as she refuses to succumb to his dominant and aggressive demeanor.

In this day and age, it is easy to overlook the great progress that Feminism and Women’s Rights have achieved in terms of equality, and therefore it is easy to miss Jane’s subtle rebellions against what was expected of her. (Despite the immense progress, women still aren’t held at the same level as men, but that’s an entirely different discourse.)

The first part of the question is rather dangerous. I have sat here for a good 15 minutes contemplating my answers carefully but I am not getting anything written so I will foolhardily start typing. I am sure that no matter how meticulous I am, I will slip up somewhere anyway. I apologize in advance. (That’s rather ironic because a majority of people on the internet, especially bloggers, utilize the internet to unashamedly blast their opinions with no consideration for others’ thoughts and feelings.)

So… does an intersexual need “treatment?” Well, yes and no. If one considers an intersexual as possessing some sort of disease that needs curing, then yes. Medically speaking, intersexuality would be classified as a congenital or genetic disorder. Biologically/genetically speaking, intersexuals would have some form of genetic “mutation.” Of course these assumptions are in relation to “normal” “healthy” human bodies. With this in mind, I can comfortably agree that any congenital or genetic anomalies are abnormal. HOWEVER, I also recognize the fact that genetic or congenital abnormalities need not necessarily be treated so long as they do not detrimentally affect one’s health. “Redheadedness” is an example of a genetic anomaly. Specifically, it is a mutation of a certain protein. These individuals that “suffer” from this mild form of albinism are not in any need to treatment (they just need to be a tad more careful with sunscreen.) In terms of intersexuality, I do not think that any form of intervention is necessary unless it is affecting the individual’s life negatively. I feel that the decision to “treat” or be “treated,” like all decisions that pertains to one’s self, is ultimately their own. (I purposely put treat in quotations because it is not necessarily “treatment” in a medical sense because that implies something is wrong. Rather I use it as an umbrella term for any sort of procedure, whether it is for aesthetics or health.)

Regarding the second part of the question, I don’t think people should really be forced to choose anything regarding significant issues. When an individual is forced to choose, I feel like it is not entirely their choice anymore. I cannot imagine a situation where one HAD to choose, but assuming that such instance was possible, there would have to be an open ended option or else their choice would be biased. I think the greatest danger with this method is the assumption that among choices that are presented to the individual, the “right” answer is included. This discourse now broadens in scope; it involves morality and electing an individual or group to decide between what is wrong and what is right.

I realize that I am not really taking a stance or answering the question one way or the other. I am doing this on purpose. A wise man once told me, “if you do not know all the sides to an argument, or are unsure of things… shut up. You will do more harm than good trying to preach, or convince others about things you yourself are unsure.”

I found the Lorber Devor reading to be both insightful and informative. While I was reading, I could not help but apply Lorber’s Devor's points to my “I.” Imagine my delight when I found out that the first blog prompt synced up with what I was already doing. :)

The first time that I actively considered the implications gender was when I got yelled at for shouting across the hall of my dorm that “my computer was being gay.” I had never stopped and thought about how or why that term carried negative connotations and why it was so freely used dergoatorily. Maybe it was because of that rude awakening, or the intriguing class title, or possibly because I wanted to take a class with my girlfriend at that time, that lead me to take “History of Sexuality.”

Before taking “History of Sexuality,” I had blindly conformed to conventional gender roles. However, the socializations/expectations of these roles that I “followed” were Western based. I make this distinction because in Saudi Arabia, it is customary for male friends, to kiss on the cheeks when greeting each other and that it was not unusual to witness these men hold hands as they walked. Personally, I perceived it as “weird.”
I was/am not homophobic. I was just apathetic, which arguably could be just as worse. It was not “weird” in an uncomfortable sense to witness these exchanges between two males; it was just a different culture from the one that I had been accustomed. As a Filipino, despite being heavily influenced by Western culture, we still tolerate, if not accept, homosexuals in our society. On a side note, I briefly looked up homosexuality in the Philippines and what I discovered was that the word “kasarian” which resembles “gender” in English, does not imply a dichotomy like its English counterpart. Instead, it simply means “kind, species, or genus” according to the Tagalog-English Dictionary. 2nd. ed. 1986. Also, it is interesting to note that the origin of the English word “gender” did not imply a gender binary as it originally meant “kind.” (dictionary.com)

“To what extent have you been pressured to conform to conventional roles?” What a tough question. Tough, not because it’s difficult to find the answer, but tough because it is difficult TO answer. I would like to say that I have not been pressured to conform in any way shape or form but deep down I know that I am largely a product of society. (What a terrible thing to admit, I guess I’m not exactly a special little snowflake :P.) I am sure that during my early childhood, before I consciously began to examine who “I” was, everybody was a “generalized other;” the only “significant others” would have to be my parents or babysitter as I am sure they were the only ones that I interacted with enough to be able to establish any association. During my “tween/teenage” years, my parents became less of significant others and the “generalized others” ironically transformed into the “significant others.”

On the flip side, it is easy for me to state that I have not resisted any pressures to conform to conventional roles because I always assumed that gender was inherent/natural. Now that I am more aware of how it is a social construct, I still don’t resist conventional roles/norms per se, as I don’t know what I would be fighting for/against, but my form of resistance lies in the power imbalance, and the use of gender’s and identities derogatorily. Mainly, I “resist” any individual or idea that holds itself/themselves to a more privileged, higher level than its counterparts. Since identity is largely due to socialization, I feel that society denying an individual’s choices as to who or what they want to be/become to be foolish and hypocritical. After all, individual ideas collectively created society and nobody questioned the norms and conventions when they were being constructed, so who is to say what can or can’t be part of society or even if it is “finished.”

*I mixed up the authors by accident in the first paragraph :S