Essay 3: Construction Of Gender Identity

Essay 3: Construction of Gender Identity Name Institution Even though written by different authors, the five reviewed articles discuss construction of gender identity based on language in different societies. While they are written from different perspectives, the articles discuss how gender identity is formed and its impact in different sphere of the involved parties. While gender identity is evidenced in all cultures and societies, it is perceived different by different people based on the used language. Some men would use insults and abusive language to prove their masculinity and distinguish it from femininity. In addition, when left unsupervised, men would be engage in different topics of discussion compared to women. For instance, they are more interested in sport statistics. On the contrary, girls would be more successful in issues requiring deliberation and discussions because they are more friendly and good in forming alliances. This is the reason girls perform better in subjects requiring talks and discussions. This essay will discuss the different perspective of gender identity construction by the five scholars based on the used language. As explained by Davies (2003), the link between learning and talk is well explained. Spoken language, which is more identified with girls is very beneficial in the school arena. This is because in different learning experiences, students are expected to get into discussion groups where they share ideas, debate issues, and investigate problems among others. As a result, boys who perform poorly in language and talk arenas are unable to succeed in these aspects. While boys were performing better in schools in the 1980s, this has changed since the 1990s. The current studies show underachievement of boys in the educational discussion as girls’ accelerated dominance in examination results is increasingly reported. Based on his research, it was reported that “Many boys’ perpetual attention to matters concerning membership of the ‘male culture’ required them to repeatedly define that culture and demonstrate their worthiness to belong” (p. 124). This shows that instead of having boys concentrate in classwork, they are more concerned with the manner in which their peers would perceive them in what is known as ‘macho discourse’. Girls would be after proving their competence in discussions while boys would be watchful of the language they use to prevent being taken negatively by their peers. Since they are poor in forming relationships, they are very keen in keeping the few alliances they have by doing everything possible to please their peers. From the study, it was revealed that girls’ discussions emphasized on being friends thus being more comfortable fulfilling both educational and social work. They are after developing a group identity with similarities emphasized on while differences are relegated. On the contrary, the discussions by boys expressed their gender in explicit forms with the work climate being competitive such that the strongest wins. According to Lucila (2009), there exist cultural differences between school and home contexts in terms of the negative effects of academic and schooling achievement. This is the reason students respond differently to multiple socializations. Following the life of one Guatemalan American teenager, the researcher how she manages to negotiate multiple socializations to gender and ethnic identities in different primary educational contexts. In each of the three institutions, her cultural values, languages, norms, and beliefs conflict with each other significantly. The teenager girl has to face both Mexicanization and Americanization, which make it hard to live comfortably in all spheres of life. Since she is a Mexican, she has to balance what she is used to with what the new culture brings to her. Since Mexicanization contradicts with Americanization, she has to ensure that she succeeds in all life experiences based on what is expected of her. Apart from race and ethnicity, the researcher also notes that construction of identity is based on a person’s social status. Those coming from working class communities easily socialize because of their higher performance in language and literacy practices. It is notable that “By upholding the value of white middle-class practices while devaluing minority and working-class ways, middle to upper class and white become synonymous with the ‘right’ practices” (p. 406). This shows that gender is also constructed around social status. Even though the White culture is considered superior in many aspects, it should not be used to oppress others. This is the reason aligning it more with the middle class makes it bearable for both upper and lower social status people. In addition, it should be noted that the current definition of identity considers it as fluid, emerging, and dynamic in social practice. This contradicts the earlier perception that identity formation was an internal and individual phenomenon that encouraged a person to achieve a unified sense of self. Identity should therefore be seen as derived from group membership and relationships a person had with the larger social world. As argued by Cameron (n.d.), construction of gender identity for young boys can be based on the talk men have about heterosexual masculinity. This was done by investigating the effect informal talks shared by male friends have on generalizations of gender differences. After listening and analyzing the shared informal talk, it was revealed that their discussion is competitive, centered on impersonal topics, and hierarchically organized. In addition, it was reported that the major speech genres include joking, sport statistics, and trading insults. This implies that when left unsupervised, women and men would engage in different d...