Okay, so i'd finally like to put into words what I think on the matter of gender and society:
Gender is a social construct built upon past representations of history. Gender is not biologically inherent (that is, the terms gender and sex being two completely different things). Perhaps this can be demonstrated through the depiction of women through time, and their growing equality. However, one could argue that this is the change of gender roles, and not gender. What discredits this idea, in my eyes, is that like it or not, the way we interact with anyone is based upon preconceived ideas of gender. Unintentionally, we will treat and surround children in a certain way which will influence them to act a certain way. Thus, the cycle is ongoing.
Moreover, people cannot be simply "male" or "female". Indeed, women tend to have more motherly instincts than men, but what about those women who can't fathom the idea of having a child, lack motherly-instinct, and yet are in all other cases "womanly"? This does not make them an anomaly, but shows the difference in attitudes of people within the same sex. People may hold a "primitive" argument, that back in the prehistoric era of cavemen and the lot the men went out to hunt mammoths while mother's fed their babes. This is hard to discredit, but the fact that female's aren't as strong as men does not link to gender in my eyes. In my world, gender is a mindset, an identity: what it is to be female or male, and what it is to be a man or woman, is two completely different things.
Secondly, like any other idea in the world, everything is created. Art, or autobiographies for example, can never be true of reality because its creator is subjective, however objectively they try to create or write or feel. Thus, if categories and preconceived ideas and gender roles were abolished, people would date back to an imagined (what I have titled) "Adam and Eve" complex. If we went back to the beginning and were bare human beings, what would constitute being "male" or "female" in the modern sense? Women hold the ability of reproduction, this is true. However, this cannot naturally be done without a man. Likewise, men are just as needed for reproduction. What is to say, that men and women are naturally meant to be together? Indeed, they may create a life, but the concept of "love" is a feeling not as strong as carnal lust.. In terms of nature, had people been free to love whomever they want, that is, a normality of heterosexuality and homosexuality alike, only certain "heterosexual" couples would hold the ability to procreate. In other words, reproduction may have been meant merely to populate, to to join two people together.
Moreover, homosexuality used to be the epitome of "pure" love in Ancient Greek times. How it has changed overtime I need not write. Thus, ideas and attitudes are clearly changeable over time. As Religion infiltrated Western Society, the concept was eradicated in favour of preconceived religious ideals, which it is my personal belief is constructed by mankind to control society.
(Finally, in terms of transgender-ism, perhaps this is a psychological extremity where the person feels off-the-spectrum in terms of fitting into their "gender role" and share more characteristics with the modern "male" or "female" gender that they feel the need to switch to fit into a category.)
No comments:
Post a Comment