Women Voices: Interview with K. and M.
In the recent years, there has been a lot of resistance, rollbacks, and challenges for women and girls in numerous nations across the world manifested by their resilience and resistance in fighting for their rights through activism. Also, over the years there has been a exhibition of women’s activism attempting to unite other women for effective inspiration of sustainable changes on women rights as Alcalde (2017) states. Consequently, they put themselves in a pedestal to resist injustice, hate and fear. Outwardly, many women are transforming powerfully after these gender crisis inspired feminist campaigns.
For this research paper, I interviewed two women; K.; one middle-aged woman aged 42 and another older woman; M. aged 67 regarding their children, family decisions, their childhood, their career decision and whether they experienced any prejudice back at home or in the workplace during their lifetime or to this extent of their life. K. is of Caucasian decent and lives in Minnesota and while M. and of African American origin and lives in Arkansas. In the light of this, women are hinged to vulnerable issues in different life stages including home and in the workplace. In the contemporary world, there is a lot of prejudice if one fails to follow their traditional gender norms and customs. Supposedly, most women as evident in the previous texts grew up in a society where the faced restrictions and where they were forcibly made to abide by what the society dictates.
Thus, while discussing the interview analysis from K. and M., one can evaluate their perspectives as promoted by their theorists’ perceptions which again differ variantly. In her argument, K. aims at deliberating on gender ideology in general while giving ironical remarks concerning the gender guidelines that exist in the society. In contrast, M., focuses on a specific masculinity idea in a homophobic context while discussing its meaning as compared to the male gender. However,, embracing the obvious differences in their perceptions and conceptions in their reasoning, K. and M. represent comparable ideas concerning the view of the society who are considered a collection of critics or prejudices that judges one according to their behavior or gender customs.
Comparing and Contrasting Their Views
In her viewpoint, K. accentuates on the idea that the traditional gender perceptions that sound unfair are obsolete, and the entire rules established by the society. People normally take gender to provoke and violate the existing rules rather than following them. According to K., there exists two stable genders; the variants whose genitals are not related to any gender and the transgenders who need to be taken seriously. In the same token, K. insinuates that there are no natural laws that govern an individual gender, and that gender is linked to ambiguity. Consequently, K. implies that embracing the impression that gender biasness is not a healthy debate category validates the rules and principles of imposed by the society.
In her response, she elucidated about the stereotyped masculinity image prevalence. Particularly, she argues that heterosexual young man who resides in an urban area is perceived by the society as an ideal male; wrong. Her perception is a sort of a different approach from K.’s, as she describes men to have power in the society thus making them most successful and attractive. Incidentally, she argues that cultural resources are mostly used to prevent inclusion of women and men who do not match to the model of masculinity description. To elucidate her opinions, M. cites some statements from Robert Brannon’s, that claim’s that the society governs masculinity as emotional weakness (Belknap, 2014).
The main difference between the responses of K. and M. is how they respond from their perceptions. If K. precisely pays consideration to homophobia backgrounds and consequences, M. offers a general synopsis of gender biasness existent in the entire society. The perceptive rules presented by M. replicate the crucial gender biasedness and depicts the gender role identification on various instances. While M. provides explicit instances, K.’s responses were more theoretical and comprehensive. Her views on power in men lives also depicts that K. overlooks on the fact that the man’s place in the society solely depends on the degree of power and control he holds over his personal life, over the women or even his employees.
At the same time, K.’s response may be considered as more logical as she uses more terms to reveal her thoughts. For example, as K. argues about homophobia, it creates and generates heterosexism, racism and sexism. It is this fear that makes her develop some distinct thoughts and actions that avoid any uncertainties in men’s masculinity. In contrast, M. employs some theories and concepts which makes her thoughts appear comprehensible to an average listener or interviewer.
Even as these two feminine discuss their views from diverse angles, their ideas and thoughts are relatively similar. Particularly, K.’s hegemonic concept of masculinity and M.’s assertion concerning peers playing as gender police holds much in common. Plainly, the first responder reflects on the expectations of the society which mainly affect individual’s gender behaviors as well as identification. Since maleness is perceived as a inert image, any unconventionalities from this norm and traditions are viewed as unsuitable. Conversely, M. asserts that individual’s family, friends besides the general public outline the limitations of the acknowledged and non-accepted gender matters.
Another similarity is linked with the gender view which is rather dynamic. Both K. and M. deliver responses that rather demonstrate that the different genders, which implies the impossibility to differentiate between the females and males. Nevertheless, the M. explores the theme in a more comprehensive style by providing intense illustrations to back her arguments. Both indicate that the society laugh off those who fails fit their pigeonholed attitudes of how an individual should stay or look like. In the same token, M. asserts that there is no reason to give one gender or another judgement since all it mostly allied to certain inner ambiances. K. as well supports the conceptual reason of addressing all the gender challenges especially homophobia.
Interview questions ( Retrieved from Basu (2018) and Belknap (2014 )
- How might the interviewee differences in approach be explained in historical or social context, age, race, etc?
- It is possible to assume that differences in M. and K.’s approaches to discussing the issue of gender in the context of feminist debates are the results of their own identities and social impacts?
- Are women focused on discussing the problem of breaking rules in the context of gender while being a representative of the transgender community?
- Can a woman, like men interested in discussing the concept of masculinity and its impact on the world of men?
- Do you find one approach to be more compelling than the other, or might there be a way to combine their approaches and arrive at a more comprehensive feminist theory of a particular issue?
- Is it important to focus on identifying the approach that can be viewed as the most compelling one in order to present the most comprehensive feminist view related to discussing the gender question?
- Who between the vision of middle-aged women and older women is more grounded and supported by different entities in the society?
- Quote paper
- Mac Dennis (Author), 2019, Women Voices. Interview with Two Women, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/493714