Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Social conventions
construction of gender
Robert Iddiols
Throughout contemporary Western society we witness the everyday significance of sex and the
cultural ideology surrounding sexual encounter. In this essay, the effects that sociological norms and
conventions of sex have on gender will be dissected and analyzed with regard to Michael Kimmel’s
article, Masculinity as Homophobia. Although Kimmel concludes that masculinity is a “relentless test by
which we prove to other men” that we have “mastered the part”(108), others would suggest that, in
fact, masculinity is the representation of our projected-self in terms of our attractiveness to our
female counterparts.
In order to effectively comment on the significance of sex within gender categorizations, we must
attempt to define gender as a restricted classification, which is something that Allan Johnson in his
Our culture allows for only two genders […] and anyone who doesn’t
As we can see, these sentiments accord with the assumptions of the popular majority, regardless of
race, ethnicity, or social class, because we habitually make automatic calculations based on an
individual’s appearance. Moreover, our culture asserts that we feel revolted and frightened by
difference. For instance, “the strange-looking guy sitting across from us on the nearly empty train”
(Johnson 13) is a source of fear because it evokes a feeling of unknowing. As a result, Western
society dictates an uncompromising system of social construction and bilinear classification: male or
Resultantly, we are left with an appearance-conscious society where difference is looked upon with
caution and derision. Consequently, our actions are altered according to the social construction of
Our real fear is not fear of women but of being ashamed or humiliated in
In turn, Kimmel explains that this fear is “a central organizing principle of our cultural definition of
manhood” (103). Gender cannot, therefore, be taken to coincide with our modern cultural
expectations. We would argue then, that gender is a socially constructed concept supported by
This definition of gender differs from our definition of sex, the biological compatibility of two
opposing sexes, male and female. Therefore, the question must be asked regarding the significance
of gender as a social construction alongside Darwinian evolution. Why is it that our contemporary
thought processes appear to contradict the natural course of human biology? Kimmel argues
consistently that fear drives our definition of what is, and what is not, culturally acceptable. In terms
of masculinity, he claims:
Fear makes us ashamed, because the recognition of fear in ourselves is
This can easily be applicable to femininity also; the norms of female behavior are adhered to by
swathes of the Western female population, arguably due to media influence and patriarchal
expectations. And yet, it seems obvious to the reader that these claims are undeniably true. Indeed,
as Kimmel continues to explain, he cites the example of a schoolyard; when asked to a group of
schoolboys, “Who’s a sissy around here?” there is inevitably an ensuing fight (104). This example
encapsulates the necessity of academic and communal awareness, as it effects even the youngest of
pre-adolescent children.
As we are reminded throughout Johnson’s work, we tend to follow the path of least resistance and
avoid confrontation over systems of privilege and social construction because we deny the existence
When you deny the reality of oppression, you also deny the reality of the
Johnson makes explicit the motives for quashing complaints over gender inequality and the damage
of social expectations. As we have seen, cultural norms and expectations have a profound effect on
children; even from birth, the father of a boy “evaluates the boy’s masculine performance” (103).
Fear, the organizing principle of manhood incurs those silences as we hasten past women being
hassled on the street, or sexist jokes told in a bar (Kimmel 103-104). This underlying crisis poisons
for gender, foretell social narratives that play out over time in accordance with norms, conventions,
and expectations we associate with each. However, the cause for this is debated even today. Kimmel
says that our behavior is a reaction to the threat of being revealed as a fraud (103), yet Johnson
claims that these traits exist and are maintained due to our willingness to ignore such problems so
long as the result is a continuation of our privilege (21). However, psychoanalysts such as Freud
have argued that our behavioral patterns are a demonstration of our innate desire to attract the
reciprocal sex. Indeed, this seems to agree with the question of our evolutionary biology.
Kimmel bases vast portions of his work on the assumption that fear of emasculation dictates
masculine social narratives, and we can see that, in some cases, this is clearly the case. Moreover,
Kimmel is correct in stating that “our real fear is not of women”, but I would argue strongly that
nor is our real fear of other men. In reality, from recent surveys and experiments delving into the
human psyche, we clearly identify a strong correlation between the actions of heterosexual males and
As we have already asserted, gender is a socially constructed conduit through which privilege is
derived. In this sense, heterosexual males are allowed to uphold a dominant hegemony, or
patriarchy, by being in the majority. By doing so, social norms, conventions, and expectations are
males are allowed to dominate social patterns, the effect is cyclical. Coincidentally, Kimmel concedes
society. They also observe that individually, they, as women, do not feel
powerful. They feel afraid, vulnerable. Their observation of the social reality
If we are to accept the notion that males dominate society, we must also accept that this presents us
with a spiraling regression, whereby masculine behavior and group-thought orchestrate a damaging
Furthermore, Kimmel later suggests that men are haunted by fears of unmanliness, and by a deep
sense of shame, so much so that women become the targets of sexual harassment in the workplace
(108). I would counter this claim by pointing to the obvious conclusion derived from the suggestion
that women are harassed at work; males often brim with sexual desire when confined to a routine
alongside a supposedly attractive female colleague. On the one hand, this represents the cyclical
degeneration of continued male ideology, yet on the other hand, this appears indicative of active
risk of “sissydom” (Kimmel 105) infected American schoolyards, but it has also attacked the
As Johnson cleverly points out during his chapter devoted to the workings of privilege, the current
patriarchy has affected our language to the extent where terms such as “sisterhood” and
“brotherhood” have hugely different connotations: one negative, and the other positive (98).
Whereas ‘sisterhood’ evokes feelings of mere companionship, ‘brotherhood’ identifies with “the
belief that all people should act with warmth and equality toward one another regardless of
differences in race, creed, nationality, etc.” (Johnson 98). The irony inherent within this definition
Conclusively, our actions and behavioral patterns are a direct result of gender’s social construction.
What’s more, the social narratives that play out from the effects of social construction intrinsically
Johnson, Allan G.. Privilege, Power, and Difference. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
Leverenz, David. Manhood, humiliation and public life: Some stories. South West Review, 71. 1986,
Fall.