Gender is Always a Performance

I am currently taking a Sociology class about the body. One of the things we discussed is that gender is always a performance, from a sociological point of view. That is because gender is largely socially constructed. Gender is a performance that makes people “put on” masculinity and femininity in order to embody socially prescribed roles about what is appropriate for their biological sex. I felt that the readings about the female pirates show the social construction of gender, thus raising interesting issues that the other fallen women narratives did not raise.

There are still many situations in the modern world where people are forced to put on gender (it could be argued, as I stated above, that we are constantly doing gender). One of the most obvious is how men and women often have to put on traits usually assigned to the opposite sex. For the female cross-dressing pirates, putting on gender was a way to cross societal gender norms. Now it is primarily a way for people to cross occupational norms. Think about Hillary Clinton. In her run for the Democratic nomination, she was often accused of being to masculine because of her assertive business personality and pant suits. In order to achieve her political aspiration, Hillary has had to take on “masculine” traits. Interestingly, her adoption of masculine behavior has both helped her succeed an earned her intense criticism. Politics is not the only arena where women often have to act masculine to achieve- this is very true in the business world. Females who are high on the corporate ladder often have to dress in more masculine attire and act aggressively and assertively in order to compete with male competition. Like Hillary, these women are often criticized for crossing the gender barriers, showing that taking on male attributes is often considered, even in modern society. Men often have to assume feminized roles as well according to their occupations but the examples aren’t as prevalent or clear.

One huge way that people have to “put on” and “take off” gender is in the case of transgendered individuals- who are neither male nor female. We live in a society where a person must be assigned a sex- so these individuals are either assigned/or choose a sex. However, many of these people feel they are constantly acting a part. They feel that they have to act feminine or masculine when the either truly identify with the other gender or with neither.

In short, it is kind of shame that people even feel they have to “put on” traits of the opposite sex. Our society places too much of divided emphasis on what are female traits and what are male traits. Psychologically, a healthy individual will have both female and male traits. The dualism that society assigns to gender makes people feel they have to put on masculinity or femininity. Perhaps it would be healthier if we had a more integrated view of gender. Who says women have to be caring, overly emotional and wear pink dresses? Who says men have to be aggressive and like cars and hinting? It would probably be healthier if we did not assign such rigid gender norms at all. Maybe then we wouldn’t have cross-dressing pirates.

Try as you might, sometimes it is about character...

At the start of the text, Charlotte is an angel, the epitome of sweetness. Her parents were very caring and never abused her, unlike the parental figures in some of the earlier texts we have read. Her father, Mr. Temple, and her mother, Lucy Elderage, married for love even though it resulted in the loss of fortune. Her father is an amiable man whose worst quality seems to be that he is too easy going and too charitable. He gives what little money he has out to those who ask for it. Charlotte is treated very affectionately by her parents, and at her death scene her father is present to mourn. Charlotte is like her father in that she is too easily influenced by the wishes of others. This makes hear easy prey for the lusty Montraville, and she listens to keenly to the advice of Mme. LaRue. Charlotte’s fall is not her own fault per se, the only fault of hers was the unlucky tendency to be rather to easy going. This malleable nature makes her the prey of those who want to profit off her, and therefore it is these manipulative wills who are responsible. The parents and Charlotte are just too weak to fight off those who are more cunning, and this is not their fault.

The only way that Charlotte Temple’s fall could have been prevented would be by changing either her nature or that of her parents to be more cunning and strong-willed. If they were keener to the ways of the world they would not take the predator’s advice. A little street smarts and stubbornness could have done Charlotte a world of good. And even if she lacked it, a strong assertive parent who kept watch over her may have done the trick. All of the trouble seems to start when she is away at boarding school. If she had been educated closer to home and under someone’s watchful eye, perhaps the tragic events may not have occurred. The father is shocked to find out his daughter’s elopement, but he ought to have kept closer watch on her.

Modern parents often find themselves too easily manipulated by their children or too into their own interests to be adequate parents. These weaknesses of will or the abundance of selfishness lead many children to unhappy ends. For example, a parent may want to keep their child happy by giving into all the child’s demands and wishes- even those that are not good for them. In order to appease a headstrong child they might let the child run the show- watching adult materials, going out late, setting their own rules. It is not that the parent does not care about their child- they just have a nature that allows them to be trampled on my stronger parties. On the other hand, the parent may be busy with their own lives and not watch the child carefully enough. The parent may want to go on their own date night or be absorbed in word- letting the child fall prey to bad influences. In both cases, the fault may not be with the parent not caring for the child. The issue is with parental authority and control. The modern parent must find a healthy balance between nurturing their child’s individuality, letting them grow, and deciding what is best for the child. The best way to keep the child safe is to be a model of consistency- always have a watchful eye over the child, make sure expectations are known and exercise authority in the household. If this is done, there is a good chance the child will avoid horrible pitfalls. However, like Charlotte, some children have an easily malleable nature that makes them prey to stronger characters. If this is the case, all the care in the world may not protect them.