Take Sociology with this class. Tell Dr. Chapman leo sent you :)
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 actually took sociology and had an awful experience because of the teaching style of my instructor so I missed the basic enjoyment of understanding sociology in perspective. Anyway I am in total awe of your blog......it is very high level thinking and you my friend have a lot of time on your hands lol...in response to the primary and the secondary relationships automatically sanctioned but us human beings ...............I would think that the primary relationship is the most important. However I do understand what you are saying. That in order to stay in tune with the secondary relationship you must follow social norms because some families (not all) love you in spite of whatever issue that you have or sex you prefer. Responding to the fact that you think gender roles are restrictive....um not quite for the simple fact that times are changing and yes people can do what they want to do ....yes they might be ridiculed but its common that you see lesbians, gays , transgender .....and a person might be uncomfortable it’s a new day and age and gender roles do not keep people from being who they want to be and saying what they want to say anymore. It’s more like the roaring 20’s and people are lovin’ the freedom.
This makes me think-- if we "let our hair down” in the primary group compared to the secondary group, which is the potential source for all socially constricted behavior, what can we conclude from our actions within the primary group? Could our actions in the nucleus of our social existence be our pure, unadulterated behavior? Often, I find my actions within my immediate family and very close friends reflect my true nature; I am less concerned with how I dress or how intelligent I appear, or what roles I am supposed to fulfill as compared to the outside world, a place that has a firm grasp on our understanding of ourselves. Can the structure of the primary group reflect the true nature of human beings? For example, women have never been truly powerless within their own homes. Sure, outside social norms infiltrated the dynamics of the household. But even the lack of education could not completely undermine the wife’s opinion, or rationality. It reminds me of a line from My Big Fat Greek Wedding where the mother says something similar to, “The husband may be the head of the house, but the wife is the neck and can turn him any way she likes.” How many of us in this class can say that gender roles had a primary influence on the structure of our family dynamics. Even when it was expected for the husband to be in charge, who really had the authority was often a matter of personality. Though it is considered ideal to have an equal exchange of power in a marriage, how many households truly operate like this? Often one is stronger than the other—it’s a matter of individual preference.
Thus, can the discrepancies between the primary and secondary group be our window into descriptive (what happens) and injunctive (what is desired to happen) norms?