C.J. Pascoe, in her book Dude, You’re a Fag, argues that heterosexuality and dominant masculinity are inextricably linked. In order for boys to assert their masculinity, they must comply with the social processes that Pascoe calls “compulsive heterosexuality.” Compulsive heterosexuality builds on the concept of compulsory heterosexuality, a theory coined by researcher Adrienne Rich which refers to heterosexuality as political institution that enforces heterosexuality on women as a means of ensuring male dominance through “physical, economic, and emotional access” (86), and constructs alternative sexualities as “the other.” Compulsive heterosexuality encompases a myriad of sexualilzed gender performances and rituals, not merely to affirm one’s
Oakley (1985, P16.) suggests that sex is “the biological differences between male and female” whilst gender refers to “the social classification into ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’”. This definition of gender assists the concept that gender is a ‘continuous performance’ and the discourse surrounding gender identity is continued. Gender is considered a performance because it only exists through the actions you take and the image you create. The gender performances come from stereotypes which make up the ‘male and female’ genders and make them ‘masculine and feminine’. Through this, gender is a ‘scripted’ performance which ensures that people conform to the norms of society and what society deems appropriate for each sex and considers this the correct way to perform gender.
These biologically unnatural pseudo-bonds undermine the strength of a society. A person's sexual inclination or attraction doesn't change the social necessity of using sex exclusively for its biological purpose: heterosexual pair bonding. Altering the definition of marriage does not change the biological need for healthy heterosexual pair bonds." "I look at it from a biological perspective—what is best for the human species. The fact is that the more promiscuous a society is, the more social and health problems we have (“promiscuous” meaning intimate sex outside of a heterosexual marriage).
In the introduction from Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s novel, she states that her argument is that the continuum between male “homosocial desire” and homosexuality cannot be understood outside of its relation to women and the gender system as a whole (2435). She then uses the sociological neologism "homosocial" to distinguish from "homosexual", stating that the social bonds between males can be applied to “male bonding”. She also notes that these activities may be characterized in our society by “intense homophobia, fear, and hatred of homosexuality” (2435). Following this accusation of sorts, she explains why she views this homosocial behavior as potentially erotic to hypothesize the potential unbrokenness of a continuum between homosocial and homosexual (2435). Her use of the word “desire”, rather than “love”, she mentions is in response to the fact that “in literary critical and related discourse, “love” is more easily used to name a particular emotion and “desire” to name a structure” (2435).
A society has determined what men and women are good at, actually influences the abilities that different genders can posses, just by stereotyping the roles and cognitive capacities of the gender. The response to counterargument is that yes, there are stereotypes that exist in current society, but the ones the body wired a certain way, it would be very hard for it to change the mapped out by DNA and chromosomes and hormones cognitive abilities. The stereotypes of the society would not be able to change the increased level of testosterone that a woman possesses, which increases her abilities to solve mathematical and spatial problems on a higher level than average man. The same way as the stereotypes would not be able to change the chromosome that one got due to the process of
From birth we are assigned a gender and we are socialized to conform to certain gender roles based on the assigned sex. These gender roles are based on standards or norms, created by society. In certain countries like the U.S. masculine roles are usually thought to be closely associated with strength, dominance and aggression while feminine genders are usually associated with nurturing, passiveness and subordination. However it is a lot more complicated than that.
The major thesis in this book, are broken down into two components. The first is how we define racism, and the impact that definition has on how we see and understand racism. Dr. Beverly Tatum chooses to use the definition given by “David Wellman that defines racism as a system of advantages based on race” (1470). This definition of racism helps to establish Dr. Tatum’s theories of racial injustice and the advantages either willingly or unwillingly that white privilege plays in our society today. The second major thesis in this book is the significant role that a racial identity has in our society.
Similarly BR’s social hierarchy is dominated by technology. It is a world that is artificially created, resulting in humanity being lost, with the artificial humans, or replicants, displaying qualities that are “more human than human”, a disparity to BNW’s clones who are the other extreme, giving up their human reproductive right. These replicants are known by their first names (“Rachel”), which Scott has opposed to the humans who are only know by their last names (“Deckard”). This language manipulation Scott uses enhances the responders understanding, as ironically it was the flawed biological humans that created the replicants, who exhibit more passion for life; satirizing their servile status, because they indeed are better than their masters.
Many people fail to recognize that racial meaning is dynamic, fluid, and historically situated. These people, most of whom are white, tend to ignore what race means in the context of how it was constructed over the years. It’s much more than just a skin color but for some reason that skin deep difference is what fuels many different forms of injustice in society. Daniel Martinez HoSang and Oneka LaBennett described in their article, Racialization, about how race is used to justify many forms of social hierarchy and power.
With this view, her final conclusion that the issue of miscommunication between men and women emerges from our lack of familiarity with gender specific styles of communication is founded on biased, fictional information. The anecdotal nature of most of the material that Deborah Tannen uses is another area of weakness for her work. She uses her personal stories and individually conducted experiments to make sweeping generalizations. For instance, that women talk too much, women build relations, and that men do not overlap, or interrupt, while communicating and are good at the written English.
For centuries people have always compared one another in all aspects, analyzing and debating every feature. When looking at the “white” person race comes into play. According to Debra J. Dickerson it comes down to the biological viewpoint of wanting to be better then someone. To become greater than others whites established supremacy and dominance to ensure they are better race. This is the creation of whiteness.
It is the aim of this research to investigate how race matters, biologically and/or socially to an individual or group. Its enhanced through critical engagement with an argumentative approach. Bringing these two perspectives from race together seems valid for a number of reasons. Biology and social constructivist approach on race, sharing priorities, including attention to context, ambiguity, relationships, interdependence, and a commitment to human fairness. Beginning with the biological term defined as a living process allied to genetic and other vital organisms or cell groups, in relationship with life.