Gender Issues: futures and implications
for global humanity
by Ivana Milojević
Written for Berkshire Encyclopedia of the 21st
Century, forthcoming (2008)
Gender refers to the social construction of
humans physiologically and biologically identified as women and men.
Because gender is a socially constructed category, we are ‘doing’
rather than being men or women. That is, we (humans) engage in the
cultural behaviours of practicing femininity and masculinity. However,
gender categories are much more fluid than simply those of women/men;
they exist on a continuum between these two ‘ideal types’ (of
females and males). Most people exhibit a combination of what are
believed to be binary opposing female and male traits such as, for
example: intuition/instinct versus rationality; receptive/passive
versus active; protective/nourishing versus forceful/assertive; moon-
versus sun-like. This symbolism – binarism between two genders –
exists in most world cultures but the actual manifestation/description
of these traits differs through space and time. Contemporary global
culture is significantly based on this dualism, which is, however,
being challenged by some significant future trends.
In addition to developments in science,
technology and medicine, various cultural changes have also
destabilised the common sense approach to how we ‘do’ gender. One
of the most significant cultural forces of the twentieth century has
been feminism. This social movement – as well as ideology,
worldview, theory, practice and way of life – has insisted that
gender identities need to become both more fluid and socially
accepted. There are many feminisms and women’s movements globally
and so the issues of gender differences and identities are
seen/defined/theorised in a multitude of ways. What is common to all
these feminist’s and women’s orientations is that they wish to
change the situation in which femaleness is seen as a disease, an
aberration from the norm, and replace it with acknowledgment that this
category is an asset with intrinsic value.
These various women’s movements also share a
belief that many of our contemporary challenges are a result of the
domination of one gender – male – and of the priorities given to
values traditionally assigned to masculinity. For example, spiritual
eco feminists assert that the environmental challenges we are facing
today partially arise from the binarism of civilisation versus nature,
and the higher value attached to the former. Such binary thinking is
in turn premised on the male versus female division and the overall
patriarchal worldview. This worldview envisions and promotes certain
(successful, powerful, dominating) males to be at the top of the
social hierarchy and over other (weaker) males, and women,
other species and nature in general. Gender issues are thus not simply
side issues, to be relegated to the spheres of gender identities,
sexuality and family. Rather, they are embedded in all that our human
species believes and practices. This includes how we commonly perceive
our futures and how we engage with social innovation and change.
The futures of gender
To further describe contemporary processes and
trends in relation to gender issues it is useful to outline three main
scenarios for gender futures. Each will have radically different
implications for the future of our local communities and global
society.
Continued female–male polarity
Female–male polarity represents the
traditional model, where differences between (only two) genders are
potentiated and exaggerated. These two genders are seen as fixed,
biologically determined and ahistorical/unchangeable. Most commonly,
it is perceived that these two genders are distinct, having separate
spheres of influence and very different attributes; at the same time,
it is the male side that is more highly valued. This male side or
masculinity is expressed through attributes of strength, courage,
assertiveness, action, creation and self-confidence, all seen as being
in-born to any human that is recognised as a male in a biological/
physiological sense. Sometimes, it is perceived that these two spheres
of female/male influence are different but are/should be valued
equally. This orientation exists in both more traditional social
settings as well as in contemporary ones, albeit taking different
forms.
To further enhance polarity between various
genders, humans have engaged in certain bodily and spatial practices.
Bodily modification as a mark of feminine/masculine identity has deep
and ancient tribal roots. Some of the older practices (i.e. corset
wearing, foot binding) have mostly been abandoned, while others (i.e.
genital mutilation, piercing, tattooing, scarification, circumcision)
are continuing. And of course new means of enhancing ones femininity
or masculinity through various forms of body art are constantly being
invented. Modern medicine and health science have allowed for physical
manipulation of both female and male bodies towards (place- and
time-specific) perceived ideals of femaleness and maleness.
Reproductive organs are thus manipulated and/or enhanced – as is
overall body appearance – through nutritional supplements,
medicines, exercises and plastic surgery. The rates of plastic surgery
in the western world – mostly to enhance one’s desirability and
appeal to the other sex – have been continuously on the rise. These
practices are most commonly entered into in order to fit the norm of
perceived feminine/masculine beauty and thus affirm the female–male
polarity. Other cultural practices of affirming this polarity
incorporate division between private and public spheres and the
segregation of females and males within each respective sphere. The
male backlash in ‘post-feminist’ times and the
continuation/revival of religious and political fundamentalism also
heavily rely on the bi-polarity of genders.
Rarely, female–male polarity is used to
imagine/work towards the creation of radically different societies.
For example, in some feminist/women’s and moralist discourses, ‘feminine’
qualities of nurturing, caring, compassion, emotional sensitivity,
vulnerability and intuition are seen as core strengths essential to
the development of a better society. This is diametrically opposite to
the values of patriarchal societies that award a second grade status
to anything womanly or feminine. Radical forms of celebrating
everything feminine are rare but do occur; at the more extreme and
less common end are woman-centered heterosexual and lesbian
separatism, female suprematism, matriarchy and gynarchy. These latter
forms most commonly exist as an idea only, rather than finding their
way into past/present reality.
Even though female–male polarity has been the
dominant model for organising gender so far, and although its residues
are going to follow us into the future, this model is, in general,
most likely to remain a product of past and contemporary times.
Unisex androgyny
One of the earliest and most persistent goals of
feminist and women’s movements has been to abolish sex roles and
distinctions between feminine and masculine behaviour/attributes. The
ideal of an androgynous future was thus propagated among these groups
but also in the context of a wider society. Some twentieth century
socialist societies promoted an androgynous ideal of dress and
behaviour not only in practice but also as an ideal future wherein
sexual equality manifests. Unisex androgyny is also imagined as a
psychological condition or characteristic, where men increasingly
adopt traditional ‘women’s virtues’ while women increasingly
adopt virtues traditionally seen as masculine. Futurists Aburdene and
Naisbett (1992: 262) have argued that in the future successful human
beings will have to possess a combination of masculine and feminine
traits. They also argued that as a group, women have better absorbed
positive masculine traits, mostly because those were valued for
centuries by male-dominated societies.
Scenarios in which women and men become
physically more similar (as in the case of hermaphroditism, where the
individual has primary and secondary sexual characteristics of both
genders) are highly unlikely, although some claim that in the future
it will be more difficult to establish the ‘natural’ gender of
some individuals. Developments in medical science would enable
mutations such that we would be able to change gender as we wish, and
alternate the procreative functions that we today associate only with
one gender or the other. won't need men (sperm banks) and men won't
need women (artificial wombs), or reproduction won't need either women
or men (reproduction of babies in factories). If seen as a means to
eliminate sexual stereotyping of human virtues, androgyny would be
very close to some feminist ideals. Since division by gender is one of
the oldest and most established divisions between humans, movement
towards androgyny might be potentially liberating and revolutionary.
But some feminists, for example Gloria Steinem, reject the concept of
androgyny as it can lean towards conformist and unisex visions which
are the opposite to the individuality and uniqueness envisaged in
their understanding of feminism.
On the other hand, an ideal society would be one
in which all differences would have freedom of expression. If the next
centuries bring into reality reproduction external to the human body,
the main reason for maintaining different social functions and roles
for women and men would disappear, thus contributing to the formation
of androgynous societies. Androgynous societies might be also formed
as a by-product of removing socially prescribed qualities for each
gender, and we might see future societies consisting of humans, rather
than of men and women.
Multiple gender diversities
This vision/scenario/model proposes that it is
not an androgyny of sameness that is the answer to sexual politics but
rather freedom from repression and dominance as well as freedom of
choice (Harris, 1980). The underlying assumption here is that
physiologically, anatomically, neurologically, psychologically and
culturally there exists a vast diversity among humans and to organise
this diversity along one or two dimensions is unrealistic and
detrimental. This scenario thus challenges the idea of
heteronormativity in which female genitalia = female identity =
feminine behaviour = desiring male partner. Or alternatively, for
males, male genitalia = male identity = masculine behaviour = desiring
female partner (Wikipedia, entry on third gender). There are
many names given to a combination of sexual and gender identities,
depending on whether one feels/behaves simultaneously like both
genders, neither or something completely different. Terms such as
third (fourth, fifth) gender, transgender, genderqueer, gender-bender,
transsexual, intersexual, pangender and bigender are introduced (Wikipedia).
Such scenarios of multiple gendered identities are not a recent
invention and can be found through much of human history. As well,
what exactly is considered ideal female or male identity/behaviour has
also varied through space and time.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century,
the general trend is towards this type of recognized multiplicity
rather than towards forced uniformity. This scenario is most likely
for the future since there is no longer a simple answer to the
question "Who is woman (man)?". Positions which describe
sexes as ultimately biological categories are now considered
simplistic naturalism and essentialism. The development of medical
science has further destabilized essentialist views of gender. If we
accept that ‘women’ and ‘men’ are mostly socially constructed
categories, it is obvious that we cannot have only one construction
and that those constructions would change over time. The creation of a
society in which every difference is able to find expression would be
dear to the heart of liberals and most feminists. A society which
accepted multiple gender diversity would definitely create the
greatest space for individual freedom and non-conformist persons.
Ultimately, this will be another way of destabilizing the importance
of gender in defying personal roles and functions within society. This
appears to be the most likely – of the three scenarios – to gain
recognition in the twenty-first century. This recognition is likely to
be further enhanced by an overall shift towards individualism. As
well, our contemporary frames of reference are global rather than
being contained within particular societies and communities, therefore
awareness of different ways of doing gender globally are only going to
increase. In turn, this awareness is likely to further the
diversification of genders, gender roles and identities.
Implications for the future of our global human
society
During times of female–male polarity the
division of labour among the two genders promoted unbalanced
societies. For example, women were primarily in charge of child
rearing, housekeeping, health care and education. Their work has thus
mostly been relegated to the private sphere of the non-monetised ‘love
economy’. On the other hand, men have been in charge of higher
socially desired positions, dominating decision making and the
monetised, professional public sphere. Unisex androgyny has challenged
this division; however, it is mostly women that have entered the
traditional male sphere and not vice versa. Likewise, the sameness of
unisex androgyny is predominantly modelled upon a male norm.
The emergence of multiple gender diversities
fundamentally challenges the societies we inherited. Once people
become free to express themselves along the male–female continuum
depending on internal and external circumstances – without fear of
reprisal – more democratic and fairer societies will result. These
societies will have flattened hierarchies, be more integrated and
diverse and exhibit qualitatively different human–nature and human–human
relatedness. New information and communication technologies are also
going to be helpful in creating these societies of wider freedom and
choice. This does not imply that future societies based on multiple
gender diversities are to be/come perfect, utopian. But they may well
become eutopian, that is, become a better option than our present and
past conditions. None of this is to be taken for granted, as any
future is premised on the action of present humans.
Bibliography:
Aburdene, P., & Naisbitt, J. (1992). Megatrends
for Women. New York: Villard Books.
Harris, S. (1980), quoted in Kramarae C., &
Treichler P.A. (1985). A Feminist Dictionary. London:
Pandora Press, p. 50.
Steinem, G. (1983), quoted in Kramarae C., &
Treichler, P.A. (1985). A Feminist Dictionary. London:
Pandora Press, p. 50.
Milojević, I. (1998). Learning from
feminist futures. In D. Hicks & R. A. Slaughter (Eds.), 1998
World Yearbook for Education (pp. 83–95). London: Kogan Page.
Wikipedia, on-line
encyclopaedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page