Woman, Womb, Bodily Autonomy and Society - Sexism, a natural fact or an accumulation of historical construction?
Opinion piece by Sarah Barakat, Visiting Contributor
February 11th, 2022
Philosophy of feminism is a widely diverse field covering various topics, yet united by a crucial and main concern which is gender. It is an approach to philosophy from a feminist perspective and an adoption of philosophical methods regarding feminist matters and inquiries. It is targeted towards understanding, challenging, and criticizing the oppression and subordination of women. Philosophy of feminism is thus unified by shedding light on issues of concern to feminists. In addition to its commitment to justice for women, philosophy of feminism examines issues that are socially constructed traditionally in political philosophy, epistemology, practical ethics, and metaphysics. In fact, one of its primary functions is investigating sexism and whether it’s socially constructed or not. In the below, I will explore how sexism is the result of socially constructed gender roles leading to sexism itself being socially constructed.
Opposers of the theory that sexism is socially constructed argue that sexism is a result of something natural. Objectors go on with their claims stating that the biological makeup of humans is the sole thing that separates human beings into two "female and male" and that thing itself imposes biological constraints on gender abilities. For example, men have a stronger physique and uninterrupted productivity cycles, which promotes them to be the financial contributor to the home. In opposition to women who get their period monthly, and it can impede their routine. Let alone being the biological creature that carries the embryo, making them the nurturers and caregivers. Men have a natural inclination of being the hunters, fighters and the warriors whereas the women tend to become the housewives and caregivers.
These profound biological differences between the two justify divisions of labor and responsibility, such as we see in the current patriarchal families and male-dominated workplaces. Thus, gender is not socially constructed, but rather, society adopted what nature gave us and did not construct it from anywhere, making sexism itself a result of something natural.
It is true, there are significant biologically grounded differences between females and males, however does that mean that the current discrimination that is happening between the two is solely based on biology? Is sexism natural though? Is gender really natural? In the presently prevalent parental domains, the mother bears the biggest burdens of cooking, cleaning and taking care of the children even when going through the hardships of pregnancy. But who said that taking care of children is solely a mother's duty? Who said that it's taboo for fathers to change diapers? And most generally who said that men cannot do traditional roles confide to women? Who has employed these as laws? The distribution of gender roles that has been happening in society is quite the opposite of normal, and the discrimination that is happening in the workplace and the world is definitely not normal. These gender roles we have adopted have become so engraved in our culture that they are now seen as natural. The appearance of gender is considered as a reality when it's only constructed by society's norms. Gender is an accumulation of historical construction and not a natural fact, and being seen as natural is causing them to be attributed to the psychological constitution of the sexes. Thus, making sex a relevant factor is what makes sexism worse and considered natural.
Who said that either gender cannot do traditional roles confide to the other? Who other than the society? In fact, there are many real life examples that indirectly endorse such gender roles in the family, like in commercials for baby products where the mothers are the main characters representing the sole caregivers in the society, and where the fathers are completely absent. Another example is when the father is not permitted to take a long parental leave from work after the child is born in order to help take care of the baby but that parental leave is a normality for the mother. This also applies to the absence of places for diaper changing in men's toilets that are exclusive for women’s toilets only. Such examples endorse the unequal roles of parenting which is just a reflection of the bigger picture of how the society perceives the already constructed roles of each gender.
Such distinctions are deemed natural, and therefore unbiased, are nothing but a social construct. These profound biological differences, discussed above, between the two which cause the divisions of labor and responsibility in the current patriarchal society and male-dominated workplace, are not due to direct experience of physical evidence, but since our customs and norms aim to construct such appearance; these customs exist to support a system of injustice which is dominance and subordination between men and women.
One might also argue that women usually prefer pink over blue and playing with dolls over guns, where on the other hand man deviates toward the color blue and playing with trucks. Classifying women under femininity and men under masculinity, objectors argue that women have a natural inclination of being shy, caring, sensitive, and emotional, whereas the men are always the opposite of that. In other words, if you were born a woman you are expected to be attracted to men, be feminine, and like pink. This type of sex-announcing reflects the true representation of what women and men are supposed to act and be like, leading to the claim that gender is not socially constructed.
The cultural and economic structures that society has created enforced a detailed and rigid pattern of sex announcing behavior that divided society into two separate categories, which are dominators and subordinators. These two categories in return constructed two classes: the masculine and the feminine.
These classes yielded rigid classifications “femininity” and “masculinity”, such distinctions presented above between males and females under the umbrella of femininity and masculinity are arbitrary and one can find a lot of exceptions. Which brings me to the following questions. Do we really know if these features are really natural? Can we really attribute sensitivity to women as a natural characteristic in them? Definitely no, because it is scientifically proven that sensitivity is present in men, but they don't practice it. Why you might say? Because society said so, the pre-constructed norms of what a man should be prohibits him from showing any signs of sensitiveness. Not to mention the ample of evidence stating that men like makeup and women enjoy sports.
Yet, these thoughts, these “norms”, who placed them and imposed them in our mind? Society considers femininity as the basic essence of women which is produced by society; societywants women to believe that the merits of a truly femininity is that of submissive, infertile, and frivolous women. We were brought up to believe that true femininity is the embodiment of those traits (which are dependent, infertile, light hearted, frivolous and irresponsible). It is civilization that created and produced such representation of women. This perfect woman reflects the cultural obsessions and preoccupations of that society. These norms and attributes we have adopted have become so engraved in our culture that they are now seen as natural.
Till now women are expected to have soft, supple, hairless and smooth skin, a graceful gait or a restricted posture and constantly obliged to appear smaller and sit with hands folded and legs pressed together when sitting in order to take up little space. All these rules for the ideal feminine body reflect society’s obsession with keeping us women in check so that men can appear more powerful. This work draws intimations of inferiority that are conveyed to women in society. Unfortunately, we women are recruited to an idealized, yet finally disempowering, femininity in a patriarchal society. Nonetheless, the way the sex announcement is happening is both physically and socially binding to women. The dress code for women is physically binding unlike men. Man are expected to be confident and strong (a non-binding trait), and women are expected to be shy and quiet (a binding and limiting trait). In brief men’s social image is not socially nor physically binding. Such classification imposed on both genders are deemed natural, and therefore unbiased, are nothing but a social construct. But since our customs and norms aim to construct such appearance; and these customs exist to support a system of injustice which is dominance and subordination between men and women.
In brief, are always under pressure to act in a certain way and to give the gendered performance expected from us. Therefore, any act that drifts from the "norm" or the socially intended gender will most probably subject us to punishment. In fact, we are discouraged from discussing or getting near such topic due to the social expectations and taboos that define our assigned gendered acts. However, it is worth mentioning that if gender was really natural then one shouldn't be punished if one felt associated with the other gender. The existence of punishment itself shows that gender is socially constructed, which lead to the presence of sexist pattern among the society.
Will the society ever stop making women inferior? Will it understand and accept that men can do roles traditionally confined to women? In my paper and under the umbrella of philosophy of feminism, which examines issues regarding to sexism. I explored how sexism is the result of socially constructed gender roles by replying to the proposed objections and supporting my claim with an argument. Leading to the conclusion that sexism is socially constructed.