Jackson 1

Dee Jackson
Professor Beadle
English 115
1 October 2016
Are You Sure This Is Normal?
In the articles, Becoming Members of Society: The Social Meanings of Society: The
Social Meanings of Gender, and Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender,
authors, Aaron Devor and Judith Lorber, highlight the concept of gender construction, as well as
the level of importance that it carries in society. Due to the misconception that gender categories
are simply the result of biological or genetic differences between male and female, the origin of
gender is often a factor that is overlooked when discussing the topic. Throughout the two
articles, both Devor and Lorber make it a point to, not only clarify why gender is not considered
to be innate, but also to elaborate on how people do gender, in an attempt to inform readers and
seemingly encourage a sense of individuality.
Judith Lorber begins her article by comparing human talks of gender to fish speaking of
water, in an attempt to demonstrate the level of routineness associated with doing gender, that
feeds the misconception that gender is determined by ones sex (19). In actuality, one is only
born with a sexual identity based on the appearance of their genitalia. According to both Lorber
and Devor, gender is typically categorized by either masculinity or femininity, and is
consistently practiced. Because gender conditioning is seemingly routine and begins as early as
birth, many may assume that individuals are born with their gender categories, and therefore
neglect to give the subject additional thought. In her article, Lorber mentions that the gender

Jackson 2

code is often overlooked until it is disrupted, stating, Then we are uncomfortable until we have
successfully placed the other person in a gender status (20). This idea can also be tied to
Devors theory of social acceptance as it relates to following gender codes.
Throughout his article, Aaron Devor uses diction that seems to imply a particular level of
seriousness that is associated with properly abiding by the gender codes provided by society. He
declares that learning to behave in accordance with ones gender identity is a lifelong process
(Devor 35). Phrases such as learning to behave set a tone that gives the impression that abiding
by societal expectations is a requirement, rather than an option or a factor in which personal
preference is formally considered. He makes it clear that gender is taught, learned, and
enforced, stating that by the age of three, children have a fairly firm and consistent concept of
gender, and by five to seven years old, they become convinced that they are permanent
members of their gender grouping (Devor 36). Certain behaviors and ideology are essentially
programmed from birth, and sometimes sooner, until they become habit. For instance, boys
might be dressed in colors such as blue or green, while girls are often encouraged to wear
variations of pink or purple. Males are also typically raised to display dominance,
competitiveness, and lack of emotion, while females are seemingly taught to do the opposite.
As children grow older, the demand for social conformity to unwritten gender codes
appears to simultaneously grow in intensity. Certain behaviors that may have been tolerated or
overlooked as a toddler or an early-age adolescent, may not be very likely to receive a pass as
one reaches his or her teens, approaching adulthood. Society demands different gender
performances from us and rewards, tolerates, or punishes us differently for conformity to, or
digression from social norms (Devor 35). However, to many it may appear that rewards are
greater for the youth, while punishments are greater for the older population. For instance, young

Jackson 3

boys are seemingly celebrated for displaying tough behaviors and athleticism, while a young
man that wears fingernail polish or a satchel is likely to be publicly ridiculed or shunned by his
peers.
While comparing the two articles written by Aaron Devor and Judith Lorber, it became
clear to me that the two authors shared the common idea that gender identity is not innate, rather
a concept conjured by society. I was able to apply this idea to my own life experience, because I
personally have to deal with a great amount of societal expectations as an entertainer. As public
figures, entertainers are often expected to behave in accordance with an image that was either
created by them, or given to them. If we waiver from these expectations, then it typically results
in ridicule, or questioning of authenticity and character. This can be unfortunate for those whose
personal lives do not directly coincide with the lives that they live as entertainers. I particularly
live a life that is almost the exact opposite from the one that I live while in my work
environment. For example, I am actually quite shy, but being that I am an entertainer, I am
expected to be outgoing and almost overly confident, both on and off the stage. When I dont
display this outgoing behavior in public settings, I am seen as being either arrogant or
standoffish, and my character is questioned.
Devor concludes his article by saying Fortunately, our training to gender roles is neither
complete, nor uniform, which sets a tone that indicates opposition to societys idea of the way
gender works (43). At the same time, it seems as if he intends to provide encouragement for
those that do not necessarily feel as if they belong to only one of the two publicly recognized
gender categories. Being that gender is not technically natural, or hereditary, it is very likely
that some will occasionally stray from their assigned gender categories. It is important to note
that this is neither right, nor wrong behavior. It is only seen as negative because of its

Jackson 4

contradiction to societys generational tradition of associating masculinity with males, and

femininity with females.

Jackson 5

Works Cited
Devor, Aaron. Becoming Members of Society: The Social Meanings of Gender.
Composing Gender, Edited by Rachael Groner and John F. OHara, 2014, pp. 35-43.
Lorber, Judith. Night to His Day: The Social Construction of Gender. Composing Gender,
Edited by Rachel Groner and John F. OHara, 2014, pp. 19-33.