Gender asymmetry - Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

Notes...

Description

Gender asymmetry: 

four features of ortner's argument: 1. argument against biological determinism > all human behaviour is determined by genes. e.g., this theory determines that men have testosterone and are more aggressive 2. evidence of universal subordination of women. 3. gender asymmetry is deeply embedded in the human condition 4. focus on pancultural phenomenon (something that cuts across time and space) that explains universal gender asymmetry.



Ortners evidence that gender asymmetry is universal: 1. cultural ideology that explicitly devalues women. e.g., roles and tasks of women are devalued. ex. women mind the home while the men provide 2. social structure arrangements. e.g., exclude women from contact with the highest powers. ex. menstruating women cannot approach wounded men or men preparing for war or wage gap 3. symbols indicating women are less valued. e.g., women are polluting during menstruation. 4. gender asymmetry is deeply embedded in the human condition. 5. the cause of gender asymmetry is related to biology but not determined by biology. it is about human consciousness.

 1. 2. 3. 4.

Ortners theory – Is female to male as nature is to culture?: all human groups interact with nature to survive. humans work to manipulate and control nature. culture better than nature due to industrial movement all cultural systems see women as more closely associated with nature than with culture; and thus are accordingly devalued.



Ortner’s 3 main points: 1. all cultures distinguish between nature and culture, and culture better than nature. 2. women are more associated with nature due to physiology, social role, and psyche, and men are associated with culture > women are associated to nature due to reproduction > women natural creators, men cultural creators 3. the hierarchical relationship between nature and culture is mapped to the hierarchical relationship between men and women 

Women are more confined to the domestics sphere because women are more engaged in reproduction and spend more times with babes. The domestic sphere is more concerned with biology, eating, sleeping, and sex and they are socialisers.

 Brad shore's analysis of ortner's women's intermediary status:  women in samoa can be seen as a part of culture: you can have a taupou who is closest to culture because she is the pure, virginal sister, and on the opposite side of the continuum, you can have the woman the presents promiscuity. her sexuality is uncontrolled and she is considered closest to nature.  women have middle status on the hierarchy, they are mediators between nature and culture, and they have ambiguous status.  women can embody the extreme of either nature or culture.  but, there is no clear contrast between men in culture or women in nature because men can also be associated with nature.

 example 1: men can also occupy the role of the status that is closer to nature because status does not deal with biological sex but with gender roles: men occupy feminine and masculine gender roles  example 2: gender division of labour: men do work that is associated to nature and women do work that is associated to culture. men work in the sea or bush and their work is heavy and dirty, whereas women clean and sanitize and maintain order in the village.  not all cultures create a binary between nature and culture.  binary system does not fit with male-female distinction.  ortner's response to critique:  accepts that it was an error to state that male dominance is universal, but she argues that gender asymmetry is relative and not absolute. in other words, we see what we are looking for.  secondly, she says that whatever we encounter must be interpreted because data never speaks for itself.    

ortner and universal nature of male dominance: we must recognize the egalitarian features of culture; it is a matter of interpretation. elements of male dominance are fragmentary even in egalitarian societies, some people come to occupy, and/or positions of influence or authority for themselves. those people predominantly tend to be men.

 Ortner and male dominance:  men were lucked out because they were more free to travel, congregate, and do the work of "culture".  it was the unintended consequence of certain functional arrangements and other paths of least resistance.  the other theory (although biologically reductionist) states that it was the will to power and the intended consequence of men's physical violence. 

ortner's argument about nature/culture divide: 1. the nature culture divide may not be explicitly labelled in all cultures; instead, it may be defined differently and it may not be hierarchical. (accepts she is wrong) 2. ortner uses levi strauss's notion of deep structure: the human mind is structured to think in terms of binary oppositions, thus there is a deep structure that generates surface manifestations such as a non-hierarchical n/c divide, or a n/c divide that is defined differently. therefore, there is still a n/c divide (at different levels) because there is something deep down that informs us how to organize our world. 3. because of deep structure, there are these divisons that generate various surface manifestations (i.e., different ways we perceive nature/culture whether it be hierarchical or not, or defined differently) and that male and female are often linked to nature and culture in the way that leads to a hierarchical relationship

 deep structure  Levi Strauss's definition that claims the human mind is structured to think in terms of binary oppositions. Binary oppositions that underlie human culture include life/death, male/female, or nature/culture



MICHELLE ROSALDO: Worked with Ortner.

     

Offered set of explanations for the subordination of women. Focused on social structure, culture + socialization. Role of mother is basis for subordination. Men's activities valued more than women's activities Men everywhere have authority over women ORTNER and ROSALDO used dichotomies (public/domestic, production/reproduction, nature/culture) to explain universal female subordination.  ORTNER’s use of this dichotomy was built upon Levi-Strauss conclusion that there’s a universal binary opposition between nature + culture.  These dichotomies were often Western categories + therefore not applicable to crosscultural studies/analysis.  Although women are subjected to universal subordination they are not without individual power. LAMPHERE said this power was based upon domestic sphere influences public sphere....