CRJ #3

When Vance states that sexuality is a “social construction” she is saying that it was an idea of a “particular time and place” (29). Sexuality is not a true more closely related to an opinion than the actual biological truth. Essentialism is a belief that similar characteristics come from a specific source. It is associated with the natural ways of the world. For example, women are child bearers because they have wombs for embryos to grow. Early Greeks seemed to follow this way of thinking when establishing the anatomy of males and females. They concluded that because reproductive organs in both male and females had similar physiology, anatomically they were the same as well (Oudshoorn 6). This is a similar idea to the idea of biological determinism, or the idea that all of our physiological functions are a direct result of our anatomy (Vance 32). The opposite of this idea is the social constructionist view. Social constructionists believe that culture and history has molded society’s knowledge about a certain subject. For example, the idea that sexual intercourse is dirty comes from the past cultural view of many citizens. The idea was then carried throughout time, and although the sexual revolution changed many ideas, this idea still remains somewhat true today.
Gender was first socially structured by the oppression of women. When women were not allowed to vote and only hold specific jobs, it was the result of a social view. In the eyes of essentialism, women and men are biologically equal and should have the same privileges. Vesalius said that “’sex is only skin deep’” (Oudshoorn 6) and viewed the male and female as not two different sexes but one. Furthermore, the words “sex” and “gender” is a representation of the idea of social constructionist. Just the use of these words discriminates and form opinions about different genders.
The article by Kathryn Ringrose proposes an interesting concept that was the first step to socially constructing gender. It refers to Aristotle’s ideas about the human body and the determination of sex. Rather than solely looking at the idea of sex through a biological determination viewpoint, it took the outer characteristics of men and women into account. The idea of balance and control was considered a “manly” trait during the time of Aristotle. When women would show an imbalance of their internal homeostasis but an action such as crying, this was considered to be an unmanly trait (16). All of his views were based on the “inability” of a women, even the idea of conception was not the ability of a women to carry a child, but the “ability” of a man to fertilize the egg (17). By exposing these completely opposite characteristics, Aristotle created the idea of gender and sex. Instead of highlighting similarities between the sexes, the first idea that all beings were of one sex, two separate sexes were created. This idea of two separate sexes may now be supported by biological determination; however, the idea that there are resemblances between the sexes has been pushed to the back burner. I believe that the idea of likeness should be assessed in more detail. The only way for women to achieve complete equality is by stressing the semblances and not the differences.