gender 2

androcentrism

male-centeredness

make men and everything masculine appear to be the neutral norm, universally human

terms associated with perspectives of gender

androcentrism

gender polarization

essentialism

gender polarization

array of diversity among human seeing collapsed into two categories: male and female

essentialism

gender is a fixed biological or psychological trait that does not vary among individuals

your sex is your gender and if not something is wrong

20th century essentialism

your gender is based on your sex,

biologically and religious grounded belief based on race, sex and identity

21st century essentialism

you gender is based on your sex

looks more at history, culture and intersectionality

relationship between chromosomes and gender

chromosomes define a person’s sex and they will be raised in a way that reflects that

people can change their gender but they cannot change there chromosomes

relationship between prenatal hormones and gender

prenatal hormones determine sex by giving the fetus certain hormones

they shape the body and brain; however it is society that shapes a persons gender

relationship between brain and gender

human brains are not determined on their sex at birth and each is unique

brains reflect gender not the other way around

relationship between postnatal hormones and gender

hormones don’t determine a person’s gender they are a reflection of the person reaching sexual maturity

hormones don’t excuse behavior

relationship between biology and sexual orientation

sexual orientation is related to biology as there are certain acts that can determine who you are attracted too

the science is shakey due to lack of understanding of the brain, people cant help who they are attracted to

evolutionary psychology perspective

basic stable sex differences that arise from causes that are inherent in the human species such as biologically based evolved psychological dispositions

evolutionary biology- natural sexual selection shaped the mind

social constructionist perspective

the variation in sex differences across social contexts that emerge from the meanings of male and female within particular contexts

aspects of human life thought natural were actually formed from social process and cultural contexts

biosocial perspective

interactive relationships between the physical attributes of men and women and the social contexts in which they live

human behavior is both biological and social

which of the 3 perspectives’ best explains current differentiated behaviors

the biosocial perspective as it gives a cultural perspective along with biology of a person as they are not mutually exclusive unlike other perspectives

which of the 3 perspectives best explains reason for patriarchy

the biosocial perspective takes into account ways that patriarchy can come into spaces as not only is the labor of women includes which is social but also sexual control

patriarchy emerges with a variety of social and ecological conditions because they interact with the sexes physical attributes to influence their performance of tasks that yield status and power within society

is there evidence for the social constructionism perspective

The article finds partial support for social constructionism (variability, power effects, cultural meanings, socialization), but concludes that these factors operate within biological constraints. The evidence does not support the strong version of social constructionism that denies any cross-cultural universals or any role for physical sex differences.

is there evidence for the evolutionary psychological persepctive

no, the patterns that are thought to be biological were grown under specific socioeconomic conditions, suggesting they are products of social structure, not evolved psychological dispositions

similarities in division of labor and patriarchy across cultures

Similarities arise from biological constraints: female lactation and childbearing (infant care, cooking near home) and male size/strength (hunting, warfare, strength-intensive tasks)

differences in division of labor and patriarchy across cultures

Differences arise from social, ecological, and economic factors that reduce or amplify these constraints. When conditions allow (e.g., game near home, early supplemental feeding, wet nursing), women can perform traditionally male tasks. Patriarchy emerges when status-yielding activities (warfare, intensive agriculture) conflict with women's reproductive activities.

functionalist persepctive

society is a system of interdependent parts the family the economy the education system etc. that work together to meet the systems fundamental needs and keep it stable

individuals who were socialized into roles that fulfilled society needs were the key to maintaining a stable social system

structural functionalism

interactionalist perspective

people do things in specific situations with context and those interactions shape societies

doing gender

structuralist perspective

internalizing social norms as expectations about how to feel and think in social roles that members of a society inhabited as parents and children

conflict theory

feminist theory

broad array of principles that focus on gender injustice.

queer theory

an approach to exploring the connections between genders and sexualities that maintains that the links between biological sex social gender and desire are infinitely variables and are socially constructed as we relate with one another

trans theory

critical, conflict-aligned perspective that argues binary gender is not natural or functional but a system of power (cisnormativity/cis-supremacy) that actively oppresses trans and gender-diverse people. It challenges feminism and other theories to move beyond simply "including" trans people and instead fundamentally rethink gender, power, and liberation

traditionalist perspective

follows traditional roles, a man and a women and their relationship with one another- male dominant and woman submissive

brownson’s plan and purpose for his book

aims to reframe the church's debate on same-sex relationships by moving beyond a stalemate of proof-texting. Instead of simply debating the handful of "clobber passages" that directly mention same-sex behavior, he seeks to uncover the deeper "moral logic" —the underlying reasons and cultural assumptions—that shaped the biblical authors' views on gender and sexuality

critiques surrounding traditionalist perspective

Brownson argues that traditionalist readings of the Bible on same-sex relationships are built on flawed interpretive methods, misunderstandings of key biblical concepts, and a failure to account for cultural context. He contends that traditionalists mistake what is culturally "normal" in the biblical world for what is universally "normative."

revisionist perspective

modern same sex relationships are ok as long as they love each other

revisionist critiques

in seeking to establish a biblical basis for affirming same-sex unions, inadvertently subordinates the clear, consistent, and universal witness of Scripture to a subjective reconstruction of "moral logic" that is heavily influenced by contemporary cultural values

canonical approach

interpretive method that reads individual biblical passages in light of the entire Bible as a completed, unified whole (the canon). It prioritizes the final form of the biblical text and seeks to understand how each part contributes to the overarching theological message of Scripture

mix of both traditionalist and revisionist perspective

inequality between women and men during creation story/ the fall

women are derivative of men

patriarchy is not grounded in creation but in conflicted relationship between men and women resulting from the fall

Brownson’s views on gender in/equality

“Already” – The new creation is already breaking into this world

“Not yet” – Christians still experience the harsh, fallen realities of this world, including patriarchal structures.

Is patriarchy the reason why same-sex relationships are not biblically ethical?

yes, patriarchy plays a key role in why biblical texts appear to condemn same-sex relationships

Because patriarchy (gender hierarchy) is rejected as a creational norm, it cannot be used to argue that same-sex unions violate “gender complementarity.” Thus, same-sex relationships may be ethically acceptable in a framework where mutuality and equality replace patriarchy

one flesh

a divinely created kinship bond of shared life, service, and mutual care, expressed through but not reducible to sexual intercourse or procreation

what should be expected of same-sex partnership based on the definition of one flesh

can and should encompass committed same-sex partnerships, because gender hierarchy and procreation are not essential to the definition

is marriage only for procreation? what are the implications for same-sex couples

no, its about unity and love

If you define marriage primarily by procreation, same-sex relationships are excluded. If you define marriage by love, mutual care, and union, they are not

stoic perspective

Humans are naturally political, and households are the building blocks of society. Therefore, men are obligated to marry and procreate as part of their duty to social order

cynic perspective

Humans need individualism and freedom. Marriage is not necessary, and one can live a good life without being tied to family structures

pauls perspective on celibacy

it is better to marry and have a channel for sexual desire than to be overcome by lust and fall into sexual immorality

presents marriage as the default and safer path for most, while not condemning celibacy

jesus perspective on celibacy

celibacy is a special calling for those deeply dedicated to God, not a requirement for everyone

presents celibacy as a voluntary, kingdom-oriented calling for some

is lust sinful, and what is the problem

Lust itself is not inherently sinful, the problem is when lust becomes excessive and out of control

what does the bible say about loving same sex relationships without excessive lust

he Bible's condemnations of same-sex relationships are based on their association with excess and exploitation in the ancient world, not on loving relationships

Brownson argues that Biblical times had little to no concept of loving same sex relations

the implication is that the biblical passages cited do not directly address loving same-sex relationships without excessive lust, because that category was not recognized in the ancient context. The sin identified was the excess, exploitation, and out-of-control passion, not the orientation itself in a committed, loving context

ceremonial law

Deals with behavior, food, and sexual relations. Examples include rules about bleeding people and shrimp being considered unclean

does not apply to gentiles

governs worship, rituals, and practices

moral laws

applies to gentiles

ethical standards

3 movements in the new testaments that address old testament purity laws

Away from external impurity → Towards purity of mind and will

Away from defensiveness → Towards confident engagement

Away from perfect creation → Towards a new kingdom

honor

person’s (or group’s) socially recognized worth, integrity, or courage, often tied to fulfilling prescribed social roles. In many traditional societies, honor is performative: it must be publicly demonstrated and defended

if one gains honor another loses it

shame

painful emotion or social sanction resulting from failing to uphold honor. Unlike guilt (internal), shame is heavily external: it depends on the real or imagined judgment of others

homosexuality is not considered under shameful

public reputation

collective assessment of a person’s honor/shame. It can be inherited, earned, or destroyed through actions—especially those that become known to the community

gendered honor

Men = honor

Women = modesty/shame

universal

Human dignity

Honor others

Shame/honor as emotions

since ancient norms didn’t consider gay couples it doesn’t consider modern couples

cultural

Gender roles

What counts as “shameful”

Social expectations

3 types of nature

nature as creation

nature as human nature

nature as what seems normal

nature as creation

this refers to the inherent, observable design or purpose embedded in the natural world by the Creator. It is about how things are in the created order, from which moral lessons can be drawn

nature as human nature

This refers to what is considered "natural" within a specific cultural context—the usual, accepted, or typical way of doing things. What is natural in this sense is often indistinguishable from what is customary

nature as what seems normal

This refers to the inner, innate character or disposition of an individual—what comes "naturally" to them. This is the sense closest to our modern concept of sexual orientation

instead of asking what is natural what does Brownson challenge us to do

He urges us to move beyond a surface-level reading of biblical commands (the what) and instead dig into the "moral logic" behind them (the why)