The book I chose to read was Opposing Viewpoints; Male/Female Roles. This particular book was already in sociological form. Within this book there are many authors and tons different viewpoints that all relate back to one topic, gender and sex roles. Many of the authors believe that gender equality is not the issue but rather that gender and sex discrimination is the real problem.
The first main concept was the viewpoints and arguments about where of better yet how gender roles are established. The first argument consisted of two choices, gender roles are established biologically or that gender roles are established culturally. Geoffrey Norman argues that gender and sex roles are determined and established through biology. He says very honestly that he does not know the exact scientific facts but that he can relate and through his own experiences he’s come to the conclusion that it’s in a boys nature to chose more a masculine identity and in the same respect it’s in a girls nature to chose a more feminine one. When it comes to parenting he, himself, has two daughters and has come to learn that although the famous stereotype of a “girly girl” is an overstatement, to an extent every girl could probably relate. He states that even without forcing his girls to play with doll houses they did it themselves. That kind of thing lead him to believe it’s biological that men be more aggressive and women tend to be more nurturing. On the other hand Michael S. Kimmel say that culture is the source of gender and sex roles. He say that in every culture it could be different. In some culture the women are the income and the men are the nurturers. Either way biology does not determine everything. He says in some ways biology determines a little bit, but that does not extend into gender roles. He states that people often confuse gender and sex as if it were one thing and it’s not. Sex is biologically what you are and gender is the role society places on you. This is why he argues culture has more influence on gender roles than biology does.
The next idea was the concept of multiple genders. One author argues that without a doubt the idea of multiple genders has to be accepted eventually and another argued that it in no way has to be accepted and should not be accepted. Anne Fausto-Sterling argues that with the increasing amount of homosexuals and intersexuals and then the government authorities arguing over things such as gay marriage that eventually people will have to accept the idea of multiple genders. Leonard Sax argues against her stating that the bible tells us how we were created and how we are supposed to live and that “the division of sexes is not a “social construct.” It is a divine creation. His main point was that we were made physically and spiritually to be man and women and to be attracted in such a manner that fits with how we were made.
The next main concept was the discussions of what womens roles should be. One idea was the debate over whether women should be encouraged to become stay at home mothers or not. Sibyl Niemann said that yes, they should be encouraged to become stay at home mothers because it benefits their children. She fights that even though she agrees sometimes staying at home can sometimes be lonely and frustrating that the nurture and care a mother can give to her children exceeds that of a day care any day. Opposing her, Reed Karaim argues that forcing a mother to become a stay at home mother not only can result in her losing herself and her own identity but that it’s actually better for the children that the mother not be around every minute of every day. This allows them to explore, learn, and be curious about things outside of their comfort zones. He states that this is necessary for a child to fully learn on his own.
Moving on, the next few ideas deal with feminism and early marriage. Two authors argue that early marriage is the best choice for women and that women should reject feminism. The other two argue that early marriage is not a very wise choice at all and that embracing feminism would be the best choice. The first two argue on the basis that women that embraced the feminism of the sixties find themselves regretting more and more that they didn’t follow their natural need for a husband and family, and because of that they are losing the “tenderness” women naturally have. The second two argue that by not embracing feminism and marrying early you would be rushing your life and not waiting for the “right” person and also in turn losing the right women have fought for.
The third main concept was discussing what men’s roles should be. One idea was arguing whether fathers are essential or not. One author argued that without a stable father figure in the picture a young boy never learns from his experiences and what he grew up around how to treat a woman or how to respond to anything because he’s never seen the right way to respond. On the opposing viewpoint the other author argued that now days in society a single parent or gay parent can do just as good of a job as a happily married man and wife at raising their kids let alone raising their boys. It not unexpected to see everywhere a single or gay parent and just because they are not the stereotypical happy family doesn’t mean they can’t raise a child.
The next ideas were that men might be experiencing a masculinity crisis and that feminism might or might no have benefited men. The first author argued that they are, that instead of getting credit for being the bread winners and fathers men are lately being put into the category of macho jerks. The second author, a woman, argued that feminism helped men and that the men are not experiencing a masculinity crisis but rather they just became threatened by women and are now blaming women for their problems. There is no crisis. Men are just avoiding their responsibilities because women can now fulfill most of those same responsibilities.
Finally, the last concept was the question of consideration, how can male/female relations be improved. There were four authors who came up with three different ideas. The first said that traditional marriage roles would be helpful. He sides with the idea that biologically and culturally it fits that women are the homemakers and men are the “dominant breadwinners.” He states that by obtaining the roles in which we were made for that we could relate better to one another. The second author says that egalitarian marriage roles would be beneficial. She says that marriages suffer because wives constantly sacrifice their careers, take home lower pay, and take on more responsibilities than the husbands do and if the responsibilities and such were spread out more equally that it would be beneficial for everyone. The last authors state that ending male and female bashing would be helpful in relating to one another. The crude and rude jokes are taken to heart sometimes and its within those jokes that the very stereotypes we are trying to diminish are created.