Response analysis of “Doing Gender”

Response analysis of “Doing Gender”

Response analysis of “Doing Gender” Author(s): Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman. In their writing West and Zimmerman examine and criticize the societal gender role concepts. I like their proposal essay which is presenting an overall understanding of sex, gender and sex category in the society. The authors believe that doing gender is an action that is accounted by the organization, interestingly the creation of the gender roles in the nation is based on community judgment on the practices and activities assigned to people in the society. They clearly state: “Our purpose in this article is to propose an ethnomethodologically informed, and therefore distinctively sociological, understanding of gender as a routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishment.”

West and Zimmerman discussion shows the differences between the sex category, sex, and gender. “Sex, we told students, was what was ascribed by biology: anatomy, hormones, and physiology. Gender, we said, was an achieved status s constructed through psychological, cultural, and social means. “I support the author’s discussion since it is very accurate that generality people understand sex being a physical as well as individual-based development. Therefore laying the foundation of who can be female or male in the society. Introduction of characterization and status of the sexes found in sex categorization. Interestingly A person can be perceived as female or male by activities and traits mostly via logic and common sense of feminist and masculinity.

Candace West and Don H. Zimmerman, article “Doing Gender” is written with a purpose of advancing the new comprehending of gender-based on a day to day interaction. The authors did this by having assessment s that criticisms the current perspective on gender and sex perspectives as well as explaining the significance of understanding the distinction between sex category, gender, and sex. The authors argue that it is essential to recognize the analytical freedom of following the interactional work involving a gender-based individual in the community. I like the author’s thrust of their commendation to the theoretical reconceptualization.”( West and Zimmerman 127).

I like the way the authors first introduce the notion of gender as an accomplishment and not as social responsibility or societal representation, and the authors explain that gender is the result of behavior and social practices manifested or codified in masculinity or femininity. The author’s argument is that gender help in to reinforce social structures and is also a result of social structure. Interestingly the authors help to elaborate that the doing of gender is making the social structures legit as well as establishing female or male natural dichotomy.”( West and Zimmerman 130) .I like the way the authors are presenting the traditional perception of man and woman being unequal and natural categories. There is a profoundly social and psychological implication that results from the author’s explanation which shows that traditional perception determines the difference in the division of labor based on female and male behaviors and sex differences.”( West and Zimmerman 131).

In their article, Zimmerman and west argument based on more physical and social features complex relationships. I like the way they are refuting the actual classical differences in gender that is socially constructed and opposing biological sex. According to Zimmerman and west gender is a social depending on convention based on everyday activities, therefore, I believe on their interpretation on the meaning of doing gender as performing operations in a society which might appear complex by interactions as well as micro politics involving a description of specific programs or activities and pursuit and either feminine or masculine.”( West and Zimmerman 135).

West and Zimmerman perceive gender as being a series of characteristics and not a responsibility. I concur with their author’s ideas of gender as an activity performed in context and continuous manner. The authors are very are wisely explaining that gender is established by interaction in the society, it can be shown naturally thus found through social performance.

In the authors view on gender, I agree that gender is the accomplishment and its importance transformed into characterizes of something and essential traits to depending on contexts and interaction in the society. Interestingly it is argued that gender can as well come from functions that are institutional and the reality is that individual is the one involved in doing gender though they practice it in imagined or real events. According to their article, I like the way the authors are using triadic categories of three concepts to substitute traditional gender or sex distinction. The division includes sex elaborated as determined based on biological criteria used in differencing female from male. The second division is the sex category primarily based on socially necessary identification that shows, and assentation of own femininity and masculinity based on social interaction never determined by sex. The last class is gender is elaborated as the result and reaction of activity in specific circumstances that are established by conventionally and normative expectation based on an individual sex division.”( West and Zimmerman 138).

Interestingly the authors contextualize that doing gender is an act that promotes assignments to specific sex division through supervision .it is very important to uphold the authors idea that doing gender is gotten through social practice and we cannot do gender, we have perceived and imposed sex category which is viewed as critical we can rebel or comply   but defending on what case were are always. I agree with the author’s gender is not easily identified as we contrasted with sex and sex categorization(.”( West and Zimmerman 150). Furthermore, we don’t have any component w which can make one male or female. Using class and status in the society is the formula used to select gender. According to authors article, the case study of trans sexual in Garfinkle is importantly elaborating on gender status based on her experience; she could learn that it was offensive to sunbath in the lawn in front of the apartment it could expose her to men.

From other women critiques, Agnes could learn that there is no need of insisting things being done according to her way and could never make her opinion to be having similar weight as that of men. West and Zimmerman explained the way Agnes status could be limited because she was perceived as women in her society meaning that there were differences of power between men and women.”( West and Zimmerman 145).

The author opinion is reflecting what is currently happening in modern society, where men seem to be dominant based on natural differences. Therefore authors sensitized that the differences that exist between female and male and are not natural especially biological structure. Their idea is wise since the circumstances and interaction determine gender categorization on who can be judged as feminine or masculine.”( West and Zimmerman 147).Additionally to “do gender” is explained very well by the authors that it should not necessarily support the concept of masculinity or femininity but is to engage in behaviors in the more of gender assessment risk. I believe that west and Zimmerman are correctly giving their critique of the construction of gender in the social context. I like how the authors are keenly engaging the aspects of sex category, sex as critical players to societal based gender. It is therefore very arguable that doing gender is importantly interactions within the society involving women and men aimed at creating idealization of what could be perceived as feminine or masculine though individual from opposite-sex category can challenge this idea.

Generally, from the West and Zimmerman article on doing gender, I support their idea that in contemporary society there is two perceptions of gender and sex. Precisely being biological and natural divisions that could exist between women and men. Additionally, we can see that media is creating a gender category which makes it easy to learn and enact gender roles. I agree with West and Zimmerman conclusion that “gender is not a set of traits, nor a variable, nor a role, but the product of social doings of some sort.” Since if we don’t learn gender knowledge, people will never have the ability to comprehend gender is not what we know naturally, but it is leaned from social interactions and accessing society. Our identification shows our ultimate resources of doing gender primarily women should get involved in activities that could make them more woman and men should do what should keep them more masculine.

In the nutshell I like the conclusion of Zimmerman and west conclusion on the role of conflict that is perceived as an aspect of the dynamics of sex differences. I totally agree that our behaviors do not depict the idea of gender. People can have a better knowledge of divisions between genders, either naturally and biologically or physically and biologically or physically. I believe that the authors conducted their research in a practical, manner in their proposal, I think that I could have done it better by incorporating recent research and contemporary society views would be of much help. These will;l guide be in explaining the role more on doing gender and calling for further research on the dynamics of sex, sex, gender, and gender categorization