Intersectional perspective on technology and gendered bodies Olivia Thompson Radford University April 27 2015
Introduction: Trained bodies through technology and medicine: Science and society use biology largely as a justification for the distinction between the binary system of sex that we have created. We have learned through the hunter/gatherer history that men and women have created biological systems for survival. Our evolution has supposedly not forgotten these intrinsic survival necessities, but has our strict gender ideology enforced this idea, or does it strive to maintain our genders through the use of technology in such a way that has altered our evolution? And, if this is the case, than can the biological theory of survival still be used as justification for our gender body differences? How incorporated must technology be before we realize we have drifted so far away from natural selection, that we recognize our bodies as a new species entirely? This paper is written under the assumption though, that there are in fact, more than two sexes that exist but that culture has maintained the binary system to simplify it's organization of humanity. Also, that while there are chromosomal, hormonal and biological differences between the sexes evolutionary, the linked genders that we enact are a conception of society that we have placed into our reality. Our gender has become so intrinsic to our “nature� that its implications on our bodies is as complex as the array of variance between the genders dictated by culture. As we have diverged from our animal nature, we have developed a social nature that is dependent largely on the technology we use. Technology has incorporated into our evolution to reify the cultural differentiation in gender and in our bodies. This paper aims to look at how incorporating technology into our humanity through media technology and medical technology has affected our physical bodies. In this paper we will look at a few of the following ideas such as, how advances in the marketing industry and conversion to digital media, have improved upon many industries opportunity to directly advertise to specific genders. Searches on the internet and smart phones lead to even more commercials targeting toward your interests. How does this technology play out in an everyday way? A look at how medical technology and the medical industry helps to enforce the ideals presented in the media will be discussed. Judith Lorber accurately describes what it means for our culture to be constantly and pervasively, "doing gender" in her article
"Social Construction of Gender". This article is essentially about how gender is a socially constructed system of knowledge that theorists such as Bordeui would say has become habitus and embodied in our constitution. I agree with the intentions of this paper, and have developed my ideas of how gender is imprinted on us, so we may in turn "do gender", in the following sections of the paper. Much of the following ideas that I have presented live under the perception of Lorber's notion of "doing gender". Because we represent gender, we are striving our whole lives to train our bodies into the two polar ends that have become gender, physical athletic training relates implicitly and its role is also discussed to exemplify gendered bodies. Media Technology and our bodies: The media creates trends which inspire and influences people’s perceptions regarding our gender differences. Advertisements constantly objectify our body parts to sell a variety of products. These socializations become expectations of our society, and thus become self-expectations of ourselves. The media has become an integral device for people to learn how to live and how to look. Commonly, men are portrayed under a certain ideal, and women also have a certain ideal form in the media. Because society lives under a strict sexual binary (male and female), the two genders linked to these sexes are the only portrayals of gender that we are shown. A masculine body is one that has an acceptable hair style, is allowed to be covered in hair, and should be strong and muscular in its ideal state. Masculine bodies do not wear makeup and wear acceptable masculine clothing. The media's portrayal of feminine bodies are as thin, large chested, long thick hair on their heads and hairless bodies. A feminine outward appearance includes, makeup, and sexually objectifying clothing. Masculinity as portrayed in the media does not allow men to cross over the boundary into femininity but femininity in the media is allowed to break the boundary into the masculine in certain aspects such as dress (as long as it is done so in a feminine way). This double standard is an obvious cultural doing, as historically, males are the higher class. Starting at a very young age of development, toys are created to act as another socializing form of media. Barbies and GI Joes are the ultimate masculine and
feminine body form. Before our brains are fully developed, we are trained to believe in a certain bodily ideal that we are expected to try and strive toward. We are also taught that these two specific bodily forms are opposing and are linked to the opposing sex. The media does not highlight the common aspects of our bodies so our brains develop into believing our bodies are supposed to be opposite. While many may believe that the media can only influence our outward appearance and not our internal biology, they are under false pretense. Medical/ Media technology intersection: The conversion to digital media has advanced advertising agents. Through a collection of data including your internet searches, your text messages, your television habits, and the things you purchase, advertising companies can narrow your interests and advertise to you in a specific way. These subsequent advertisements try to influence the purchase of products or ideas that typically enforce a 'biological gender'. A few examples could include, when a woman in her early twenties notices her hair thinning, as a woman, this concerned her. Female pattern baldness is unacceptable in society's standards and she began to search the internet for ways to improve the thickness of her hair. Within a couple days, commercials for “Rogaine for women” began saturating her television. Constantly trying to accomplish her gender, weight loss and physical training were also among her concerns. Watching endless workout videos online, and on her smart phone started to affect the commercials and infomercials on her TV, as products for programs like “P90X, Insanity, and T25” work to influence the purchase of these big name weight loss programs and enforce the ideal female body. On the opposite gender spectrum, a man began to notice erectile dysfunction in his late twenties and learned through advertisements that he could find a solution to his problem through the use of Viagra and other testosterone boosting supplements. Although diminishing testosterone is a naturally occurring event, because of the societal repercussions, the decrease in testosterone in men even in their elderly years should be fixed because it is labeled as a “dysfunction” by the medical industry. This same man struggled with large male breasts, a condition he learned through the media to be called gynecomastia.
Historically ideal gendered males have not had breasts, so this condition is treated and fixed to maintain the male gender. Perhaps our evolution (because of the foods we eat, or the environment we live in) is supposed to allow for some humans that appear male to develop breasts, but our current gender model does not enforce this ideal. Unheard of conditions are brought into awareness through commercials for medicines or solutions and subsequently we see a boost in the prevalence of people with these problems. Intersexuality, more than two sexes: The medical and media industries do more than just tame our two widely accepted genders into nice and neat categories, it also makes sure to provide medical support only relating to these two genders and depictions and portrayals of these two genders. What is left from mainstream media and medical practice is the illustration of differently gendered people. When a person is born with ambiguous genitalia, a chromosomal difficiency, or a hormonal abnormality, a diagnosis of Disorder of Sex Development (DSD) is arrived at. (DSD was formerlly known as "intersexuality". Our medical definitions and nomanclature has changed to include in intersexuality words that indicate a "disorder", "abnormality" and "difficiency". These words are not an accident, and create the parameters for how we as a culture associate differently gendered people to being disordered and in need of treatment. Our treatment of intersex patients, affects common perspective. When dealing with intersex infants, the practitioner decides on a course of treatment and in extreme cases may preform emergency surgery without the consent of parents or infant to surgically alter their genitalia to ultimately decide on a gender. The medical industry claims, that this is to give the child the opportunity to live in normalcy and avoid potential psychological harm. Later in life, hormonal treatments to maintain gender are expected. Many times parents are warned against telling their child of their condition, so as to further promote normalcy. The dilemma in this treatment occurs individually as well as culturally. The organization of gender into two categories is limiting and with treatments such as this for those who evolutionarily would break the mold, it only further perpetuates our gender binary. In Anne Fausto-
Sterlings article, "Five Sexes, why male and femal are not enough", she examines the history of intersexuality and differently gendered people throughout history. The article opens with a story of legal repercussion for a non-gender conforming individual. It shows how deeply our gendered roots go, economically, culturally, medically, socially, and further. The article discusses big players such as John Money, who researched intersexuality at Johns Hopkins and developed much of the treatment protocol that we still use today. This article was a thorough look at intersexuality and it's history, as well as its prevalence today. If the population is truly constituted by 4% of intersexual humans, than that is truly an astounding number. My thoughts after reading this, is that while doctors and researchers on the topic of intersexuality, such as John Money of John's Hopkins, seem to initially be trying to examine intersexuality to, in turn help the intersexuals find ways to manage their “problem” (either by surgically, hormonally, or enacting gender), I believe it to actually be a crude way to oppress an entire group of people, and continue the ideology that society holds firmly that gender is a two-way street. Statistics/ Societal Prevalence and how its addressed: A boost in prevalence expresses how medicine and media corroborate each other. Take into account the way men and women eat differently. Historically, women serve men and their families first. Women require less food than men, for men need to maintain their strength to enact their gender. Generationally, this eating pattern could have actually affected our bodies, and the differences in bodily strength. In studies,
“Gender differences have been reported for dietary intakes and eating behaviors (Li et al., 2012). More specifically, previous studies have reported that women have a higher fruit and vegetables consumption and tend to have greater interest in healthy diets and a desire to eat food lower in energy than men (Rolls et al., 1991; Fagerli & Wandel, 1999). Gender differences in eating behaviors have also been reported, with women generally showing higher dietary restraint and disinhibition levels than men (Provencher et al.,2003)” (Leblanc et al,. 2014).
Feminized health could potentially have an impact on female weakness generationally. Studies show that men intake more energy and women intake more fat. Fat is for long term storage, and energy is for daily strength. Women may store fat more readily because of the role evolution has played in our gendered diets. In a sample of 64 men and 59 women of relative similar age were all measured for physiological characteristics. Males had a mean body weight (kg) of 96.6 while females only had a mean body weight of 77.9 kg. Males had a mean BMI of 30.8 while females have a mean BMI of 29.6. While, males have a higher mean body weight and BMI, females have a higher body fat percentage of 39.2, with males only having 26.7% body fat. (Leblanc et al., 2014). The medical industry (key term being industry), is a business that creates the terms by which we define and measure the differences of gender. When our bodies are not properly enacting our ideal gender, we feel “unhealthy” and not normal. Much of these perceptions are dictated by the medical industry which, plays a huge role in maintaining and perpetuating gender. And although, “According to motivational profile, men and women reported similar basic psychological needs” (Leblanc et al., 2014), the medical industry supports and enforces differing measures and definitions for gendered bodies. Current medical research recommends differing levels of caloric intake between the sexes. Harvard Health Publications at Harvard Medical School summarizes why, “A person’s caloric requirement depends on body size and exercise level. Sedentary people of both genders will keep their weight stable by taking in about 13 calories per pound of body weight each day. Moderate physical activity boosts this requirement to 16 calories a pound, and vigorous exercise calls for about 18 calories a pound. On average, a moderately active 125-pound woman needs 2,000 calories a day; a 175-pound guy with a similar exercise pattern needs 2,800 calories”. (Harvard). Because calories (energy) are required based on weight, and activity, it is an obvious connection as to why men should require more. But this does not take into account how society has affected how large and active a person of opposing sexes may be. Science has primarily recognized evolution as a long term, generational morphing. Current medical standards do not promote evolution however, as the goal is to preserve the current
stasis of what is medically (and societal) “normal” or healthy. Because of the preservation of our bodies, we have halted evolution and use the rigid medical guidelines to perpetuate our gendered bodies. Natural selection is no longer, as we have redesigned the human model and are striving to make advances through technology every day such as genetic and stem cell research. Designer babies, have been created to try and develop socially favorable traits in people, and dis-include the unfavorable ones. To continue to address the issue of gendered bodies, medical interventions are common and expected. Medical interventions such as hormone replacement therapy amplify the amounts of hormone levels in a humans body so as to supplement the “deficiency”. My question is though, if a large percentage of women take birth control for problems not relating to controlling pregnancy, and a large percentage of men need to replace testosterone, then aren't our bodies trying to tell us something about what is “normal”. Surgical interventions also help to rectify problems that differentiate our genders. As previously stated, men who experience gynecomastia can have this problem addressed surgically in extreme cases. Women are increasingly inclined to undergo the opposite procedure, and instead of breast reduction, have breast implantation. When the two genders combine and create an ambiguous gender form, known previously as Intersexuality, now called Disorders of Sex Development, often this is addressed quickly at birth surgically, and maintained through developmental stages with synthetic hormone replacement therapy. All of these medical interventions impact our evolution in a single life span. Physical training/ Training our gendered bodies: When looking at the differences in gendered bodies, physical and athletic training relate naturally to this idea, because by enacting a gender, you are essentially training your body. Physical training also relates to the overall themes addressed in this paper because it is a: 1) profiting industry, 2) medically related to health concerns of fitness and nutrition, 3) about maintaining our current body through maintenance, and 4) the ideal body types sought at the gym are continually ingrained in us
through the media and medical industries. To aid in the research of training bodies, an interview took place with a professional in the physical health industry. An interview of a personal trainer of over twenty-five years helped to shed light on some of the differences seen in the training of men vs the training of women. Eileen Lorenz is a personal trainer at the YMCA and Anytime fitness and shared her expertise and perspective on the topic. Her primary objective is to aid in the health and fitness of clients who wish to achieve physical goals. She initially brought to my attention the name of the the first company that she works for, “YMCA”. The YMCA (Young Men's Christian Association), is very telling in that it directly states in the name, that it's original intention was to create a place for young male Christians to achieve morality. Maintaining youth through fitness and physical activity was closely tied to a religious institution to even further and more deeply perpetuate gender, and the divide between the genders. She says that although, times have changed, physical strength training is still very gendered. A few of the differences she mentioned was that in her experience, “Men do more strength training than women still. Women do more cardio than men.” (Lorenz 2015) She discussed at length the idea of differing hormones creating different needs in the gym saying that, “testosterone is important, evolution has not forgotten that men were hunters and women were gatherers”, an idea I do not necessarily believe (Lorenz 2015). Lorenz also stated that in her experience with clients, “women will express their pain much quicker than men, a man will wait weeks before mentioning an injury, whereas women typically express their pain the moment it occurs” (Lorenz 2015).
The interview left me with some interesting perspectives and thoughts on the issue not only relating to the issue at hand, but on Lorenz and her position as a personal trainer. In my opinion, Lorenz seems to be continually enforced on the differences between men and women but most interestingly enough to me, was that although physical training is a predominantly male field, she did not ever seem to express how herself as a woman was an exception to these broad and general categorizations she has placed on men and women. When inquiring as to why she became a personal trainer, she revealed that
she had been a security guard at a bank and began training herself in her early twenties. She wanted to strength train to perform better at her job, and be seen as equal to her male counterparts. She stated that her intention however, was to achieve the body she wanted. When I asked what type of body it was that she wanted she just said, “completely healthy”. I am not sure if she wanted to achieve the ideal female or male body, but in her perspective, her work could lead her to a “completely healthy body”. While I think she sees women such as herself, “exceptions” to the rules of gender, I find it alarming that people who enact non-normative gender roles, still want to maintain the common gender differences in our society. Possible Solutions: When trying to figure out possible solutions to the problem of gendered bodies, I look to classical theorists to guide my thinking. If Weber were to discuss this issue, he would have the pessimistic outlook that we are locked in an iron cage and that it would be impossible to break free from the gendered ideals that have grown larger than life in our society. This way of thinking only allows for philosophy of the problem, with no real solution in sight. Under the perspective of Marxian theory, Marx would argue, conspiratorially, that capitalism is to blame for the continued perpetuation of differences in our bodies. Because much of these forces influence the direct profiting of industry, our gendered bodies help to maintain a portion of the capitalist society that we live in. But while I do think that industry is a part of the problem, society maintains itself without any pretense for profit making. I would like to believe, although it is not very likely, that with awareness education, people will begin to not only see the reinforcing influence of technology and capitalism on gendered bodies. The medical industry, I believe, is aware of its impact on the perpetuation of maintaining the current gender binary system and thus, maintaining our bodies. Research will have to be brought into the limelight on the negative impacts of medical treatments that engender us. Accounts in the future of how certain treatments such as surgeries, and hormone replacement has had a detrimental effect on the lifespan of humans or the creation of a naturally evolving body.
The use of our technology to promote this type of education would be the most effective way towards a solution. Examples of non-normative gender ideals would have to saturate our media. A movement embracing the similarities between our bodies would have to ensue. As I stated before, the Media and Medicine corroborate each other. There will have to be enough examples of natural bodies in our media and in society to influence medical practices. If society is influenced enough through the media, then medicine will in turn be influenced to shift with cultural perception. Eventually once society has been affected enough in perspective, the best way to enforce these ideals is to create laws protecting our natural bodies. Laws would have to be put into place to legitimize the commonalities, and striving towards healthy lifestyles that can evolve with time as our environment does, as opposed to maintaining rigidly our current stasis of health. This topic could be discussed in much greater detail, and with much more research to back up much of my theories throughout this paper. I feel as if the veil of socialization has greatly fallen from me, but the idea that I myself am still a socialized agent interests me greatly. I also was very interested in this topic because I am passionate about humanity and a natural evolution of our species. I want this world that we live in to look very different, and I believe strongly that education and awareness can be a stronger motivating factor for change than manipulation. I feel that the most important aspects of this issue are how people are affected deeply on a psychological level as they struggle to achieve something that is unrealistic. The second most important aspect of this issue, is how technology is incorporated so heavily into our lives that it has taken what is natural, and evolved it into something new. I would be less upset about this issue, if we had a different perspective on our bodies, instead of trying to enforce old ideals that hinder the creation of new truths. My goal to impact this issue moving forward is to work in the medical field in some manner, to bring the intersection of psychology, medicine, and sociology into the limelight and educate others on these topics.
References Fausto-Sterling, A. (1993) “The Five Sexes� in The Sciences March/April 1993, p. 20-24 "Good Nutrition: Should Guidelines Differ for Men and Women? - Harvard Health." Harvard Health. N.p., n.d. Web. 16 Mar. 2015. Leblanc, V., C. Begin, L. Corneau, S. Dodin, and S. Lemieux. "Gender Differences in Dietary Intakes: What Is the Contribution of Motivational Variables?" Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietics 28.1 (2014): 37-46. Print Lorber, Judith. 1994. Paradoxes of Gender: "Night to his day" Social Construction of Gender. Yale Publishing Page 13-36