Gendered Double Bind

The whole idea of the double bind when it comes to gender, first arose in my mind in Women in the Bible, where one of my peers brought up the idea that "no matter what men do, it's never right."  I don't really agree with it, but I really don't agree with it because if one is going to empathize with the men in the bible, it is sort of horrific for them to not acknowledge the COMPLETE disregard for essentially all women in the first testament.  So when he (how surprising that it was a male who pointed this out), he attempted to have substantial evidence by saying that when a man in the bible tried to "protect" women, he was patronizing women, but if he didn't, he was a horrible human being.  I can sort of understand why he might think this, but I think it is of utmost importance to understand that this masculinity double standard idea, is extremely multi faceted and it also, most certainly, applies to women and femininity as well.  

A gendered double standard essentially is a smaller box, INSIDE of the gender box.  It is almost as though people are not happy until there are the most particular criteria for genders and if people do not acquiesce, they are ostracized.  A really good example is from the films from class; for men, it is better to be masculine and 'manly' but if you do that, you are probably violent and angry.  If males are more sensitive, then there is also something wrong with them.  

For women, there is this awful idea that women are simply inherently feminine until they try and prove themselves otherwise, and even so, women are overly sexualized no matter how they act.  It's an awful cyclical paradox that no one can escape. 

Are Men and Women Different?

Dr. Widman had some very interesting assertions when it came to the idea of biological/psychological differences between gender.  It was clear from the beginning that he felt the sexes were different, regardless of social constructions, there were just certain limits that each sex had, which cause them to be similar and different all that the same time (I may have heard that incorrectly, because as I reread it, it does not make much sense). But in essence, Dr. Widman made the assertion that no matter what, genders have different capabilities solely due to the fact of their sex.  It was difficult to tell whether or not he agreed that this idea is leading to the demise of modern society, but regardless, it's not true.

Defining Conflict: GENDERED EDITION

In class, the discussion if the different types of conflict was quite riveting. Who would have thought that a group of pacs students (okay, I am totally generalizing and stereotyping) could get so heated/conflicted about violence and conflict?!  I had not anticipated that.
In terms of the different types of violence, it took me back to my peace & gender days.  Polly had ingrained in our heads the difference between cultural, structural, and direct.  Little did I know those concepts were so multifaceted, nor had a considered how many other types of violence and conflict exist in the world.
In terms of conflict and violence, they are often considered inherently gendered concepts.  As we discussed in class, it was difficult to adequately discern whether or not conflict is actually gendered or whether it is simply the influences that social constructions have had.
Many rely on the fact that the sexes handle conflict differently solely because of biological differences; i.e. men are stronger, thus they must be more violent (a completely false assertion).  Or women have babies, so they must be more peaceful.  In reality though, the only reason these ideologies exist is because of the perpetuation of misconceptions.  In order to create a tolerant society, people must be intolerant of certain ideologies, like the ideas of gender roles.
So finally, the discussions and readings from class make it clear that conflict is only gendered because of the fact that society has refused to believe anything other than what the dominant culture (males) decide.