It strikes me as strange that while the inequalities between the sexes is something generally known and talked about, the formation of the gender binary in itself is largely unexamined. Personally, I had never thought of the concept before, and from what I gathered it seems that many in our class would say the same. Our look at the curtsy as symbolizing a kind of “thank you” and the bow, in turn, as a “you’re welcome” really highlighted the ways in which gender “roles” subliminally thrive in our culture even today. Many of the readings we examined discuss the formation of the definition of “gender” and the distinctions between that and “sex.” Joan Scott makes an interesting point by saying “gender becomes a way of denoting “cultural constructions”- the entirely social creation of ideas about appropriate roles for women and men…Gender is, in this definition, a social category imposed on a sexed body.” Only recently, as studies of the sexes and gender categories have become more popular and legitimized, has the issue of defining what is “woman” and what is “man” become troublesome. Those that don’t fall into either category are no longer kept as outliers without any place in society, for there is a growing awareness of at least the possibility of a third category, one which defies any single concrete definition (though in my mind this category is an altogether real one). Now, more so than in the past, human rights activists and especially promoters of gender equality have a whole other issue to deal with- the promotion of rights and recognition for all we might refer to as “others,” as in those that don’t quite fit “male” or “female” categorization. Looking beyond the binary system of gender categorization is, indeed, going to be quite a change.
Scott, Joan W. “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis” pg. 1056
Gender, Torture, State in Crisis 