Lorber and Martin Articles-Sammy Secrist

The readings this week were interestingly paired. The Judith Lorber article focused on the adult gendered body, gender inequalities, and society’s justifications for gender inequality. The Karin Martin article inquired how bodily differences are established by proposing that the  “gendering of the body in childhood is the foundation on which further gendering of the body occurs throughout the life course” (Martin 495) and that a “hidden curriculum also turns children who are similar in bodily comportment, movement, and practice into girls and boys-children whose bodily practices differ” (Martin 494). Both authors contend that gender is something that we “do” and bodily differences are not inherently natural, but develop to appear so by means of social expectations. They attribute societal norms and behaviors to be the cause of gender inequality instead of biology.

Judith Lorber argues that bodies are converted by societal behaviors to fit into two classes, “women” and “men”, and that society converts bodily differences between men and women into inequality. In addition, I found assumptions of people to be a reoccurring theme in the points Lorber put forward. Throughout the article, she emphasizes the assumptions people make in attempting to make practices fair, when equity would more effectively be carried out if all aspects of bodily differences and historical facts were understood and taken into account. For example, in the case of physical strength, women may not have the upper-body strength of men, but “by physical strength, women’s pelvises will do just as well as men’s shoulders” (Lorber 577). So, in the West Point example Lorber presented, they should have created a means to test the physical capability of women instead of giving them boosters in a test designed for males. These practices and assumptions are what fuel the condition of inequality. This points to the contention that male physiology and qualities seem to define most aspects of society. All in all, Lorber seems to be saying that although there are many physiological differences between men and women, gendered people result not from this biology, but from the present social expectations and that bodily differences are meaningless until given meaning by society. Men’s bodies are expected to be powerful, whereas women’s bodies are expected to be fragile and tentative. These expectations are what define femininity and masculinity in society and create the separation between man and woman as viewed by society.

Martin investigates how these gendered bodies come about and how “bodily difference underlies gender inequality” (Martin 494). By this she says the way we hold our bodies may indicate information about power and importance, which would create and maintain a “gender hierarchy”. I think it’s interesting to look at how gender is socially structured to give evidence about the organization and values of society as a whole. Martin proposes that gendered bodies develop in childhood and a hidden curriculum in preschools and other institutions turns children who are similar in bodily aspects into children whose practices are different. It is clear men and women hold their bodies differently, and I found it interesting to see how this originated. Basically, she says gender becomes embodied in childhood, and this embodiment of different bodily practices makes gendering feel natural. These covert lessons in schools that discipline the bodies differently are a means of social control that creates a division of two classes of people. Children are told to behave like young ladies and gentlemen, instantly creating a difference in how they move and take up space. I found it particularly interesting to read how dressing and dressing-up played a role in this gendering of bodies. It had never really specifically crossed my mind how much of an impact clothes could have on creating a distinction between the bodily practices of men and women. Certain clothes allow certain types of behavior. Dresses and tights are quite restrictive, which limits movement and certain activities, which in turn leads to girls taking up less space and assuming more tentative postures. I found this an interesting comparison to the girls Martin observed wearing overalls and the relaxed positions they took in these clothes. This comparison makes it clear that bodily adornment has a significant effect on how a child moves and takes up space. In addition, there seems to be more focus on the appearance of girls, with mothers and teachers constantly rearranging their clothes and hair so that they appear “ladylike”. I think this idea of their bodies being under the control of someone else and this constant need to perfect says something about how girls view their bodies and image when they are older. It was also interesting to see the shift in how three year olds played dress-up in comparison to how five year olds played dress-up. Martin observed that the three year olds tended to experiment more in their dress-up, whereas the five year olds “tended to dress-up more gender normatively” (Martin 499). This observation shows a clear shift in thinking between these children, signifying the gendering process is considerably facilitated and encouraged during this time. Its also interesting to see how the interactions between the children and the teachers, such as in discipline and/or instruction, further explain the gendering of bodies. Boys appear to be encouraged into more relaxed positions and girls into more structured. Martin observes that girls were more likely to be reprimanded into more formal positions, whereas teachers were unlikely to enforce these instructions to boys. This concept can be seen in the activities the children choose to engage in. The boys choose activities that are more relaxed, and girls choose activities that require more structure and organization. These observations clearly demonstrate the beginnings of the difference in how men and women hold their bodies. In terms of discipline, teachers often instructed girls in a more direct manner and to alter their behaviors instead of just stop, whereas “teachers rarely told boys to change a bodily behavior” (Martin 505) which “leaves boys a larger range of possibilities of what they might choose to do with their bodies” (Martin 506) as opposed to girls who have limited options. This seems to add to the explanation as to why women’s bodies take up less space. Also, loud, public reprimands of boys would seem to cause them to associate this interaction with anger and negativity which enforces aggression more in boys than girls. Girls appeared to be reprimanded more individually. I found this article to be very interesting because the events in this article are things we’ve all gone through and may even remember. It’s fascinating to be able to look back on my experiences in preschool or around preschoolers with a more sociological perspective and relate them back to what Martin is saying in this article. The implications of her observations clearly explain how gendered bodies begin to be established, though they may not be easily acquired or inherently natural.