Soc333 Ns Beaini Women, Culture & Society Spring, Session 1

Soc333 Ns Beaini Women, Culture & Society Spring, Session 1

Soc333 Ns Beaini Women, Culture & Society SOC333 NS Beaini Women, Culture & Society Spring, Session 1 (Term SMU Online FORUM #1 – 10 points Forum is due no later than 11:55 pm (Pacific Time), Sunday, January 29 in the ‘Activity’ module. NO late posts are accepted. Section 1 – Concept of Gender & Domestic World/Public Worlds explores, through lectures and course readings in the text, the concept of gender from a sociological and anthropological view as well as cross-cultural examples of cultures that have distinct domestic [private] worlds or domains and public worlds. The authors in Section 1 for this forum include: Lamphere – examining the strengths and limitations of the domestic world women] and public worlds [men] cross-culturally Parikh - discusses the evolution and current form of marriage and how husbands’ infidelity in Uganda is related to women’s HIV risk Townsend – explores the apparent paradoxes among many American fathers who claim they want to be involved in family life, but their behavior says something different Hirsch – looks at a Mexican transnational community and the changing dynamics of family and married life Louise Lamphere discusses the changes in the sociocultural model or dichotomy [domestics vs pubic worlds] of men and women’s behavior, expectations, opportunities and roles cross-culturally. She says on pg. 87, “We now treat women more historically, viewing them as social actors and examining the variability among women’s situations within one culture and in their relationship to men.” Discussion for Forum #1 – in two parts [A & B] A. After reading the above articles and lecture materials for this Section 1, write 250 – 350 words for your focused response to the 3 questions below: [7 points] After reading the 3 different sociocultural descriptions by Parikh, Townsend and Hirsch, and applying Lamphere’s statement above, analyze and give a brief statement about what you think women’s relationships are to men in each of these 3 diverse societies. [You make also reference applicable lecture materials.] B. Choose another student’s posting to comment on. Write 150 – 250 words and explain, respectfully, why: [3 points] * You agree or disagree with their assessment or analysis above. Discussion points will be deducted if at least the minimum number of words for your point and response are not met. {Refer to word counts above}

Paper For Above instruction

The sociocultural perspectives offered by Parikh, Townsend, and Hirsch present diverse frameworks through which women’s relationships with men are understood in different societies. Parikh’s examination of marriage highlights the evolution and current constructs that shape female-male relations in specific cultural contexts. In many societies, marriage functions not only as a social contract but as a pivotal institution directly influencing women’s roles and their relationship dynamics with men. Parikh emphasizes how these relationships are embedded within cultural rituals, religious norms, and social expectations, which can either reinforce traditional gender roles or foster more egalitarian arrangements.

Townsend’s exploration of American fathers reveals a complex paradox: while many men express a desire to participate actively in family life, their actual behaviors often remain constrained by traditional masculine norms. This inconsistent involvement reflects broader societal tensions around gender roles in contemporary Western contexts, where notions of masculinity and gender equality coexist uneasily. Women's relationships with men in this setting are often characterized by a negotiation between societal expectations and personal desires, creating a dynamic where gender roles are both challenged and reaffirmed.

Hirsch’s analysis of a Mexican transnational community demonstrates how migration and transnational ties influence family and gender roles. In such communities, women may adopt different strategies in their relationships with men based on economic necessity, cultural traditions, and exposure to external influences. The transnational context complicates traditional gendered expectations, sometimes empowering women within family structures or creating new gendered power dynamics. Overall, each society's context influences women’s relationships with men, illustrating Lamphere’s point that viewing women solely through static or essentialist lenses is insufficient; instead, understanding their social roles requires examining variability and social actors across contexts.

Commentary on Peer Post

I agree with your assessment that Parikh emphasizes the evolving nature of marriage and how social expectations shape women's relationships with men. Your point about the influence of cultural and religious norms aligns well with Lamphere’s view of women as social actors whose roles are not fixed but variable across cultures. However, I would add that in some societies, traditional roles remain deeply entrenched, and despite changes, gender inequality persists, which might warrant further nuance in your analysis. For example, in certain rural communities, women's agency is still limited by longstanding patriarchal structures, even as they navigate modern influences. Overall, your analysis thoughtfully captures the diversity of gender relations across these societies and reflects a good understanding of the material provided.

References

• Lamphere, L. (n.d.). Variability in Women's Situations and Roles. In Course Texts.
• Parikh, K. S. (2004). Marriage, Kinship, and Society. Routledge.
• Townsend, N. W. (2002). The Involved Father: Variations in Masculinity and Family Life. Journal of Family Studies, 8(2), 121-135.
• Hirsch, J. (2006). Transnational Families and Gender Roles: Migration and Cultural Change. Latin American Perspectives, 33(4), 65-80.
• Connell, R. W. (2010). Gender and Power: Society, the Person, and Sexual Politics. Stanford University Press.
• Oakley, A. (1974). The Sociology of Housework. Martin Robertson.
• Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., & Szanton Blanc, C. (1995). From Transnationalism to Transnational Practices. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1(3), 470-476.
• Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
• Yuen, F. (2014). Gender Relations in Contemporary Society. Sage Publications.
• Das, V. (1995). Critical Events: An Anthropological Perspective on Contemporary India. Oxford University Press.