Newsflash: A Failed Experiment in Gender Neutrality

From the moment we are born, or perhaps even before, we are labeled “male” or “female.” This initial determination of sex is based on scientific measures: chromosome analysis, external genitalia, physical markers, etc. We generally assume that every individual determined to be a boy or a girl according to these indicators will then identify as such. However, gender and sex are not necessarily the same. Traditionally, sex is considered a biological phenomenon and gender a more social or cultural one; gender can be viewed as the self-expression of sex. Gender is thus something that we construct for ourselves: we are socialized to act in accordance with the stereotypes of our gender. We perform gender through our style of dress and hair, our preferences for toys, sports, hobbies, television shows, and music, and in subtle mannerisms such as how we walk or sit. These concepts and shared ideas about what is male versus what is female are so pervasive throughout society that we accept them as true and begin to assume that they are inherent and unchanging. We then act in accordance with these stereotypes, and in so doing, perpetuate the system. When parents give their daughters baby dolls to play with, they are reinforcing the belief that girls are more nurturing. When parents discourage their sons from crying, they are reinforcing the belief that boys are more rational or unemotional.

These distinctions between what is masculine and what is feminine become increasingly problematic in the context of a patriarchal society. Patriarchy can be defined as the deeply engrained beliefs, symbols, and ideas about men and women that permeate and structure our culture. Distinctions based on sex and/or gender become equated with different qualities and different levels of worth: masculinity is viewed as the norm and traits associated with masculinity are seen as more valuable. Femininity is seen as deviant and consequently devalued. The oppression and subjugation of women that is so prevalent in our society is thus a product of divisions based on gender. Is it possible to resist the influence of the stereotypes present in society? Can we raise our children in a gender neutral fashion and then accept those who no longer fit perfectly in the box of what is male or female?

These are the questions considered by Newsweek contributor Jesse Ellison in her narrative “My Parents’ Failed Experiment in Gender Neutrality” (click here to read her story!). Jesse explains that she was born in 1978, a year that embraced “the notion that gender roles were entirely rooted in the way you were raised.” The feminist movement of the 1970s was in full force at the time. Ellison describes it this way: “the feminist fringe was giving up bras, shaving and diets; they were lighting their own cigarettes and opening their own doors. It was the “new feminism,” and where the first movement was concerned with legal equality, like the right to vote, these women were focused on de facto equality: asserting that it was nurture, not nature, that made women and men different.” If nurture was the answer to the nature-nurture debate, then women could theoretically gain equality by refusing to participate in typical gender norms and denying the traits that made them traditionally female.

As a result, Jesse’s parents decided to ignore gender stereotypes in raising their daughter, who they intentionally gave an ambiguous name that could fit either a boy or girl. Jesse describes her “gender-neutral” childhood: “as a toddler, they dressed me in overalls and cut my hair in an androgynous bowl cut. I didn’t have Barbies; I had wooden blocks.” However, Jesse quickly notes that her parents “little experiment” was a failure. As soon as she was able to speak, she requested pink dresses instead of her standard overalls and refused to show any interests in trucks or construction, despite her mother’s persistent urging. Interestingly though, Jesse does not analyze why this experiment failed. Is it because gender is biologically engrained? Or was it due to outside social pressures? Jesse’s parents could not possibly have sheltered her from the stereotypes perpetuated by the greater culture; she was sure to see little girls hosting tea parties in pastel colored dresses and braids and little boys running around wild covered in dirt. In considering her childhood, Ellison quotes her mother: “we all thought that the differences had to do with how you were brought up in a sexist culture, and if you gave children the same chances, it would equalize. It took a while to think, ‘Maybe men and women are really different from each other, and they’re both equally valuable.’” This recognition is in line with the second wave feminists known as “difference feminists” or “maximizers.” Maximizers maintain that there are meaningful biological differences between men and women that cannot be ignored. However, most importantly, difference does not have to mean that one is superior to another. What is masculine is not necessarily the “norm” and what is feminine “deviant.”

This idea of gender neutrality is often broached in discussions of individuals with intersexed conditions, who are also classified as “deviant”. These individuals may have any type of abnormality involving the reproductive organs or endocrine system and thus cannot be easily classified into our binary system of sex and gender. Anne Fausto-Sterling, author of Sexing the Body, writes that these dualisms create a very limiting either-or choice for individuals and creates a hierarchy where one identity is more palatable than another. Suggestions have been made to raise these individuals as gender neutrally as possible so that they can decide which gender they associate or identify with. However, this suggestion often seems impractical. How can a child navigate the world without a definition of self that includes gender? Can children, or anyone truly, resist the norms and stereotypes that are so widely spread? Can other people accept individuals who do not fit neatly into our binary system? Jennifer Reid Maxcy Myrhe describes herself as an “androgynous young feminist” and admits that “people are uncomfortable around me because I do not, at first glance, it easily into a gender category” (Findlen 86) and furthermore that confused strangers “believe that they have the right to pass judgment on my appearance and thus on my person” (Findlen 84). The example of intersexed individuals is perhaps more drastic than the case that Ellison shares but illuminates similar ideas that gender is socially constructed and that differences, while present, should not be seen as inherently negative. The experience of intersexed individuals also seems to demonstrate that it is impossible, for practical reasons, to resist stereotypes of the greater society and live in a gender neutral fashion.

So, Ellison writes that, as her generation matured, “women could call themselves feminists and also embrace the standard trappings of femininity. We could wear pink, spend money on fancy shoes, and simultaneously expect—no, demand—the same success as men. Femininty and feminism were no longer a contradiction.” While this freedom to be classically feminine but still demand equality seems like progress, Ellison warns that this attitude may have been taken to an extreme. She describes our society’s current obsession with Paris Hilton and all that glitters, quoting well-known feminist Susan Brownmiller: “There’s so much emphasis on appearance that is part of what women have to do today…You have to be a babe, in addition to everything else. Looking like a sex object but also claiming the rights of women who are not sex objects—that’s tricky.” This analysis is reminiscent of Ariel Levy, author of Female Chauvinist Pigs. Levy describes the new raunch culture that has consumed our culture, citing examples such as Girls Gone Wild and the Playboy Enterprise. While feminism asserts that women should have the choice to dress or act as they choose, Levy also worries that the choice to act in certain ways is tainted or otherwise influenced by the surrounding patriarchal society. Is it truly empowering to wear the shortest dress possible or flash a group of men? Levy quotes Erica Jong, “I think we have lost consciousness of the way our culture demeans women..let’s not kid ourselves that this is liberation. The women who buy the idea that flaunting your breasts in sequins is power—I mean, I’m for all that stuff—but let’s not get so into the tits and ass that we don’t notice how far we haven’t come. Let’s not confuse that with real power. I don’t like to see women fooled” (Levy 76). In regards to this, Ellison suggests that the current generation has “swung too far” in the direction of raunch culture and writes that by rejecting the gender-neutral ideals of their mothers, the women of the current generation are assuming that the fight has been won and that sexism no longer exists, which, unfortunately, far is from true.

Women can continue to embrace their femininity and choose to express themselves however they see fit. However, they still need to be cognizant of the patriarchal and sometimes oppressive society that surrounds them; women must remain committed to demanding equality. Gender neutrality may not be necessary, but the intent behind it is still worth considering. Ellison concludes her narrative perfectly with this comment: “Now that I'm older, and a little bit wiser, I love that my parents were so consciously trying to foster androgyny. Ultimately, the whole point was to ensure that I had the freedom, and choice, to be whoever I wanted—which is, after all, what feminism is all about.”