Why do sociologists separate sex and gender?

One of the most important requirement of science is that it is unbiased. Our textbook has described the need to look objectively at society and at sociological phenomena rather than being biased. Unfortunately, the sociological study of gender (or at least the study of gender as described in our textbook) seems to be biased even in the basic definitions on which the study is built.

According to our book, sociologists define sex as the physical differences of the body and gender as the cultural, social and psychological differences between men and women. It states that these definitions of sex and gender as separate entities are "fundamental" because "many differences betwen men and women are not biological."

This separation of sex and gender is not justified for several reasons. First, sex and gender are interrelated, a fact which I find indisputable for anyone who has a basic understanding of the biology of hormones. Hormones are biochemicals that affect our behavior, and serve to link the biology of men and women with how men and women behave. It is fact that higher testorterone levels, which are vastly more common in men, lead to more aggressive and dominant behavior. It's also a fact that hormones effect emotional wellbeing, and women's hormone levels vary over the course of a month while men's remain much more stable. I do not offer the discussion of hormones as "proof" of gender roles, but only as concrete examples of the link between biology and behavior.

Secondly, I think the definitive separation of sex and gender is inconsistent with our understanding of other concepts that also have biological influences. The fact of being human, for instance, entails biological, social, cultural and psychological differences between human and animals, but we do not separate the life of a human into "biology" and "everything else." In fact, sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists acknowledge that biology, society, culture and psychology interact and together can describe what it really means to be human.

If "human" can in one word describe biological, sociological, cultural, and phsychological differences between humans and animals, why can't one word describe biological, sociological, cultural and psychological differnces between men and women? To me it seems that by the very act of adopting these definitieons of sex and gender as absolutely distinct, sociologists are biasing their field toward the theory of the social construction of gender. Only within the context of this theory are gender and sex completely separated and gender seen solely as a product of societal and cultural influences.

This chapter was very disconcerting to read. I think that sociologists needs to seriously consider whether they are adopting these definitions because they are necessary or simply in order to facilitate arguments that support one theory over another without scientific basis.

Why we should care about global inequality?

If knowing that you sit comfortable in an air conditioned room reading this blog when over 1 billion people in the world are malnourished and hungry isn't enough of a reason to care about global inequality, it will be difficult to engage you further on this subject. But if the simple fact of knowing that many many human beings just like yourself live on a dollar or less a day and don't have running water or a place to take care of their necessities is not enough, I think you should at least consider that investing in developing countries will help our economy as well. If the current populations in developing countries had better nutrition, better education, and higher income, we'd have a whole new market of consumers who would want to buy our products, thus contributing to our economic success.

Social Class Matters

High schools are notorious for demonstrating stratification, describes in out text as inequalities among groups, relating not just to property but to attributes such as gender, age, religious affiliation or other. Milner argues that teenagers are cruel to each other because they lack power in many aspects of their lives and seek to create social structures where they can get power. THis theory helps explain why cliques and social exclusion are so common among teenagers.

Most of us think that the pettiness of highschool cliques passes with time and would like to believe that social status begins to play a less dominant role as we mature into adulthood. But I think that class matters for people of all ages. Class matters first because it affects the opportunities that are available to you. Members of the working and underclasses have much less access to good education and other benefits than their upper middle class counterparts. But class also defines how we view ourselves and others. There were many examples of this in the stories section of the People Like Us website. Individuals who had either experienced upward or downward mobility tended to also experience alienation from family and/or friends. Even if all social classes experienced equal opportunities, class would still matter.

Extra Blog: The strength of democracy and women in the workplace

Our textbook emphasizes gender inequalities and established power structure in many of its discussion of sociological principles. Feminists such as Kathy Ferguson that seem to seek the formation of alternate organization and societal power structure that disparage "male values" and uphold "feminine values" may not realize that their efforts may eventually hurt our democracy.

I have no problem with women entering the workforce. This is essential for many families in our current economic situation and with the cost of living being what it is. Still, I think that there is a tendency among radical feminists to view women who would like to stay at home, support their husbands and take care of the children as unenlightened and oppressed. I think that the discussion in chapter 6 on social capital provided insight into how women dedicating themselves to homemaking and childcare actually help strengthen democracy.

Our text states that strong social capital is essential to democracy. Some sociologists argue that civic engagement and membership in social organizations has declined in the past quarter century. While membership in some organization like the AARP have grown, an increasing percentage of members simply pay dues without really participating in the organization. The book cites one reason for this as the entrance of many women into the workplace whereas before women were traditionally free of career responsibilities and were motivated to participate in volunteer and community organizations. The decrease in civic engagement has been accompanied by a decrease in voter turnout and faith in government. The weakening of social capital has decreased the effectiveness of our democracy.

Every woman should make her own decision about whether to work, stay at home with her kids or devote herself to volunteer work. Still, I think that the failure of radical feminist to recognize homemaking and child rearing as a sphere in which women bring unique feminine gifts and talents and can find real fulfillment may discourage women who are so inclined to devote themselves to the occupation. This could have the long term effect of weakening the fabric of our democracy.

Internet: less isolation, but also less real intimacy

I think that the internet has had both positive and negative effects on our American society. There is no doubt that the internet has allowed more effective networking among people, as well as allowed friends and family to stay in touch even when separated by long distances. As our textbook mentioned, the internet has allowed many people who do not have the benefit of frequent face to face contact with others, such as shut ins, to interact with others in chat rooms and form meaningful relationships.

On the other hand, I think that the internet has had a negative effect on the development of real intimacy in relationships. We have already seen in our text that there is a human tendency to communicate with our faces. In general, in person interactions allow easier communication when discussing emotional conflicts or making major decisions. An example of this is the tendency for businessmen or businesswomen to fly across the country or the world for meetings, when in this age of technology he or she could simply call in. As the internet has flourished, people have begun to rely more heavily on email and chat communications which I believe has the potential to decrease the level of intimacy that is possible between the two who are interacting. Some people, and particularly teenagers, spend a significant amount of time chatting with friends over the internet. If this time were spent having meaningful conversation in person, more emotional intimacy with parents, siblings and friends would develop. While the internet has decreased isolation, it may have also decreased the intensity of our interactions. We have a greater quantity of interaction now, but not greater quality of interactions.

Crime and Community

I enjoyed reading the short section in our Introduction to Sociology textbook on Crime and Community. The authors propose that preventing violent and serious crime has been the main focus, but that recently there has been an increasing realization of the need to maintain proper order and civility. I think it is very true that the small crimes of vandalism, graffiti or rowdy youth gangs can have a cumulative effect on a community. In communities where these crimes occur frequently, citizens feel discomfort, avoid public places and withdraw from community. This creates a societal vacuum, devoid of the normal societal controls that would be in place on potential criminals just by the mere presence of others and the need to practice basic civility. In this way, it seems that overlooking small crimes in a community can in fact lead to the occurence more serious crimes. I think this is a good argument for the broken windows theory in its approach to crime prevention.