Take Away Assignment

“Launius and Hassel sca! old feminist analysis in a way that makes its underlying components highly accessible to novice students. " is textbook provides students with a critical framework, while giving the instructor the # exibility to select companion texts for each of the threshold concepts.”

— Ann Mattis , Assistant Professor of English and Gender, Women’s, and Sexuality Studies, University of Wisconsin—Sheboygan

“Launius and Hassel are the mediums of metacognitive awareness in the $ eld of Women’s and Gender Studies, distilling threshold concepts so that students can become active agents in critiquing and shaping our gendered world. " is book should be foundational in any Women’s and Gender Studies program.”

— Tara Wood , Assistant Professor of English and instructor in Gender Studies, Rockford University

“! reshold Concepts is my go-to foundational text for both teaching Women’s and Gender Studies classes and facilitating Safe Zone training. " e extensive end of chapter questions and learning roadblocks sections help students process and apply the information. I appreciate that the authors succinctly frame and contextualize complex gender studies topics.”

—Christopher Henry Hinesley, Associate Director, Women’s and Gender Studies, Rochester

Institute of Technology

! reshold Concepts in Women’s and Gender Studies

! reshold Concepts in Women’s and Gender Studies: Ways of Seeing, ! inking, and Knowing is a textbook designed primarily for introduction to Women’s and Gender Studies courses with the intent of providing both skills- and concept- based foundation in the $ eld. " e text is driven by a single key question: “What are the ways of thinking, seeing, and knowing that characterize Women’s and Gender Studies and are valued by its practitioners?” Rather than taking a topical approach, ! reshold Concepts develops the key concepts and ways of thinking that students need in order to develop a deep understanding and to approach material like feminist scholars do, across disciplines. " is book illustrates four of the most critical concepts in Women’s and Gender Studies—the social construction of gender, privilege and oppression, intersectionality, and feminist praxis—and grounds these concepts in multiple illustrations.

" e second edition includes a signi$ cant number of updates, revisions, and expansions: the case studies in all $ ve chapters have been revised and expanded, as have the end of chapter elements, statistics have been updated, and numerous references to signi$ cant news stories and cultural developments of the past three years have been added. Finally, many more “callbacks” to previous chapters have been incorporated throughout the textbook in order to remind students to carry forward and build upon what they have learned about each threshold concept even as they move on to a new one.

Christie Launius directs and teaches in the Women’s and Gender Studies program at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh. She has taught the introductory course for over 20 years at six di! erent institutions. She is also active in the $ eld of working-class studies; she is the book review editor for the Journal of Working-Class Studies and served as president of the association from 2014 to 2015.

Holly Hassel has taught in the Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies program and the English department at the University of Wisconsin Colleges since 2004. Her work on teaching and learning in women’s studies has been published in multiple books and journals. She is editor of the journal Teaching English in the Two-Year College.

Titles of Related Interest

Feminist ! eory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives Carole McCann and Seung-kyung Kim Women Science, and Technology: A Reader in Feminist Science Studies, ! ird Edition Edited by Mary Wyer, Mary Barbercheck, Donna Cookmeyer, Hatice Ozturk, and Marta Wayne Transforming Scholarship: Why Women’s and Gender Studies Students Are Changing ! emselves and the World, Second Edition Michele Tracy Berger and Cheryl Radelo! Reproduction and Society: Interdisciplinary Readings Edited by Carole Jo! e and Jennifer Reich Gender Circuits: Bodies and Identities in a Technological Age, Second Edition Eve Shapiro Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries Vivian M. May

! reshold Concepts in Women’s and Gender Studies Ways of Seeing, " inking, and Knowing Second Edition

Christie Launius and Holly Hassel

Second edition published 2018 by Routledge 711 " ird Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Taylor & Francis " e right of Christie Launius and Holly Hassel to be identi$ ed as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identi$ cation and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by Routledge 2015 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Launius, Christie, author. | Hassel, Holly, author. Title: " reshold concepts in women’s and gender studies : ways of seeing,

thinking, and knowing / Christie Launius, Holly Hassel. Description: Second edition. | Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge,

2018. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identi$ ers: LCCN 2017043817 | ISBN 9781138304321 (hardback) |

ISBN 9781138304352 (pbk.) | ISBN 9780203730218 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Women’s studies. | Feminism. | Sex role. Classi$ cation: LCC HQ1180 .L38 2018 | DDC 305.42—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017043817 ISBN: 978-1-138-30432-1 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-30435-2 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-73021-8 (ebk) Typeset in Adobe Caslon and Copperplate by Apex CoVantage, LLC Visit the eResources: www.routledge.com/9781138304352

VII

Preface ix

Acknowledgments xvii

Chapter 1 Introduction 1

Chapter 2 The Social Construction of Gender 29

" is chapter focuses on distinctions between sex and gender, exploring how gender is socially constructed, and to what ends, as well as how social constructions of gender are shaped by issues of race, class, age, ability, and sexual identity.

Chapter 3 Privilege and Oppression 89

Systems of privilege and oppression profoundly shape individual lives. " is chapter explains how these systems play out via ideology and societal institutions, and are internalized by individuals.

Chapter 4 Intersectionality 141

Intersectionality is at the heart of feminist analysis. " is chapter explores how di! erent groups bene$ t from or are disadvantaged by institutional structures, as well as how overlapping categories of identity profoundly shape our experiences within institutions.

Contents

VIII CONTENTS

Chapter 5 Feminist Praxis 191

" is chapter unpacks how Women’s and Gender Studies prioritizes social change and discusses strategies for bringing about that change.

Glossary 233 Index 241

IX

! reshold Concepts in Women’s and Gender Studies: Ways of Seeing, ! inking, and Knowing is a textbook designed primarily for use in the introduc- tory course in the $ eld of Women’s and Gender Studies (WGS) with the intent of providing both skills- and concept-based foundation in the $ eld. " e text is driven by a single key question: “What are the ways of thinking, seeing, and knowing that characterize our $ eld and are valued by its practitioners?” " rough extensive review of the published litera- ture, conversations with Women’s and Gender Studies faculty across the University of Wisconsin System, and our own systematic research and assessment of student learning needs, we identi$ ed four of the most critical threshold concepts in Women’s and Gender Studies:

• the social construction of gender • privilege and oppression • intersectionality • feminist praxis

" is textbook aims to introduce students to how these four concepts provide a feminist lens across the disciplines and outside the classroom. " e term “threshold concept” is de$ ned by Meyer and Land as a core disciplinary concept that is both troublesome and transformative. As they go on to explain, “A threshold concept can be considered as akin to a portal, opening up a new and previously inaccessible way of thinking about something. It represents a transformed way of understanding, or

Preface

X PREFACE

interpreting, or viewing something without which the learner cannot progress.” A threshold concept is integrative, and when students cross the threshold and grasp a concept, “the hidden interrelatedness” of other concepts within that discipline becomes apparent (Cousin 4).

What Makes ! is Book Unique " e majority of WGS textbooks tend to be organized around the institutions that foster and reinforce gender hierarchies while also acknowledging the intersections of gender with race, class, and sexual- ity. Typical examples of these institutions include women and work, the family, media and culture, religion and spirituality, health and medi- cine, etc. Some focus exclusively on the U.S., while others integrate, to greater or lesser degrees, a global focus. Most also conclude with a chapter on activism. " is approach privileges coverage of content over the disciplinary ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing. " ese textbooks certainly introduce and employ these four threshold concepts, but often as a one-shot de$ nition, with the assumption that students will come to understand the concepts’ centrality through encountering them repeat- edly in the context of topical units, without their centrality being made explicit. What ! reshold Concepts in Women’s and Gender Studies: Ways of Seeing, ! inking, and Knowing does is not “cover” material but rather “uncover” the key threshold concepts and ways of thinking that stu- dents need in order to develop a deep understanding and to approach the material like feminist scholars do, across the disciplines. " e advan- tage of this approach is that rather than the “one-shot de$ nition” that characterizes most texts, students continually learn and relearn how the threshold concept is illustrated across multiple contexts, thus reinforcing their understanding in more substantive ways. Further, foregrounding the “learning roadblocks” that many students encounter as part of the learning process helps circumvent and move more quickly past those misconceptions that keep students from progressing in their under- standing of Women’s and Gender Studies.

In ! reshold Concepts in Women’s and Gender Studies, we make the assumption that ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing in Women’s and Gender Studies must be made transparent to students, and that learning will be done most e! ectively if students understand the course goals, the

PREFACE XI

pedagogical approach, and the potential roadblocks to understanding. We contend that the work happening on the part of the instructor and the work happening by students should not be “parallel tracks” that each negotiates independently, but part of the teaching and learning conver- sation itself, happening in and about the content, as part of the work of the classroom.

Features ! reshold Concepts in Women’s and Gender Studies is organized strate- gically and conceptually in a reverse pyramid structure. " at is, each threshold concept is introduced at a broad level as the key idea of the chapter, while subsequent chapter components add layers of depth and speci$ city. Each chapter contains the following elements:

• Opening Illustration : The opening illustration engages readers in the topic—typically these are drawn from historical, cultural, biological, or current events topics.

• A Feminist Stance : We use the framing concept of a “feminist stance” (Crawley, et al.) to help students continue to understand the nature and strategies of a feminist approach with each chapter they read. Our intent is not to suggest that there is a singular, monolithic femi- nist stance, or what that stance is ; instead, we draw attention to what a feminist stance does —employ a critical lens using the threshold concepts.

• Definition of the Threshold Concept : Each chapter focuses on one of four threshold concepts. The chapter opens with a definition of the threshold concept, drawing from established and relevant research across interdisciplinary fields of study.

• Framing Definitions and Related Concepts : More specificity is offered by related concepts, or other explanatory terminology by scholars in the field that help students see how the threshold concept is sup- ported and illustrated by related terms.

• Learning Roadblocks : Once students have an initial grasp of the con- cept and its related terms, the chapter introduces common “learning roadblocks” or misconceptions that many students encounter which prevent a full grasp of the idea. These misconceptions are directly

XII PREFACE

addressed along with tools that can serve as a “check for under- standing” so students are able to understand not only why these learning roadblocks crop up but also where their own learning is in relation to the roadblocks. The goal of this feature is to help stu- dents identify common misunderstandings that prevent them from “crossing the threshold.”

• Anchoring Topics : To further develop students’ understanding of the threshold concept, each chapter includes a discussion of it in rela- tion to three anchoring topics: work and family, language, images, and symbols, and bodies. These three anchoring topics were cho- sen because of their centrality to feminist scholarship and activism. Selected issues within the anchoring topics are discussed through the prism of the particular threshold concept in an effort to help students develop a scaffolded, nuanced, and complex understanding of the cluster of related issues within the anchoring topics.

• Case Study : The case study offers an in-depth and analytical per- spective on one key issue that should crystallize students’ under- standing of the concept. Case studies have been selected based on relevance to the threshold concept, and to represent a broad range of interdisciplinary issues.

• Evaluating Prior Knowledge Activities : As Ambrose and colleagues have observed, students’ prior knowledge (particularly common- sense understandings or everyday use of discipline-specific terms) has a strong impact on how students absorb new knowledge. Activi- ties that ask students to evaluate prior knowledge, to monitor their progress, and to develop a metacognitive understanding of their knowledge building stem from this learning principle.

• Application Exercises and Skills Assessments: Gender and women’s studies classrooms typically emphasize several key related values focused on participatory learning: validation of personal experience, activism, reflexivity, action orientation, and local–global connections (see Crawley et al., 2008; Stake and Hoffman, 2000; Markowitz, 2005; Maher, 1987; Shrewsbury, 1993). This praxis orientation (see Blake and Ooten, 2008) is reflected in application exercises and skills assessments for each chapter in which students are invited to connect disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge with lived experience.

PREFACE XIII

• Discussion Questions : Consistent with the signature feminist pedago- gies of Women’s and Gender Studies classrooms that focus on collabo- ration, interconnectedness, and creating a community of learners (see Hassel and Nelson, 2012; Chick and Hassel, 2009), this book adheres to the convention of providing discussion questions for each chapter.

• Writing Prompts : The text includes writing activities that encourage students to process, reflect on, and integrate the course material.

• Works Cited and Suggested Readings : In this edition, we have sep- arated the Works Cited section from the Suggested Readings. Because the text is intended to serve as a critical introduction to key concepts and not as a reader, we provide suggested, relevant readings that instructors can use to support and develop students’ learning. In this way, we imagine the book to be part of a customized course in which the instructor can structure the curriculum around key ideas, then provide a deeper learning experience for students by adding primary documents, classic essays, or online texts to the course that reflect the instructor’s specific learning goals and area of expertise.

Goals of the Book As coauthors, our goals for this book have been to provide a text that re# ects what we have learned about student learning needs in Women’s and Gender Studies throughout our collective years of teaching in the $ eld as well as current thinking in the $ eld and in higher education more broadly about what it means to learn within a discipline or inter- disciplinary area. " e organization of the text around threshold concepts is intended to re# ect what Lendol Calder calls an “uncoverage” model, one in which students learn to think, see, and know like feminist schol- ars rather than absorb a body of knowledge to be “covered.”

As a result, our intent is to help students learn those ways of knowing and then be able to apply them to new subjects, in the way that femi- nist scholars do. We have tried to re# ect in the text some of our shared values as teachers and writers. We have aimed to re# ect an up-to-date sensibility in including recent data and research studies as well as cur- rent phenomena. Our tone emphasizes that arguments about sex and gender (and any number of other issues within feminist scholarship and

XIV PREFACE

activism) are unresolved, ongoing, and controversial, and the text con- textualizes a feminist perspective by explaining what that perspective stands in contrast to.

While we treat each of the four threshold concepts in a separate chap- ter, which in one sense implies their separability and separateness, they are of course interconnected, and we strive to make those connections explicit within each chapter. In some instances this means returning to the same topic across chapters and highlighting di! erent elements of it. For example, though feminist praxis has its own separate chapter, we have identi$ ed the ways that discussions of “problems” within Women’s and Gender Studies can be responded to with action or di! erent ways of thinking. Similarly, though intersectionality has its own chapter, we have attempted to incorporate an intersectional perspective and inter- sectional analysis throughout the book, addressing the interrelatedness of systems of privilege and oppression as part of an intersectional examina- tion both across and within topics and themes.

Logistics of Using the Text While individual programs and pedagogical approaches may vary, the threshold concepts we have identi$ ed are central to the content- and skills-based learning outcomes of a large number of Women’s and Gen- der Studies programs nationally (see Levin and Berger and Radelo! ). As such, we believe that using a text like ours can be helpful in making those programmatic learning outcomes explicit, and can support the assessment plans of programs and departments.

Logistically, one way to use this book in an introductory WGS course would be to assign all $ ve chapters in succession over the $ rst half of the semester before moving on to a varying number of topics (drawn from our anchoring topics or others of particular interest to the instructor) that would be spread out over the remainder of the semester. In this scenario, all of the threshold concepts would be revisited in the context of each topic.

A di! erent approach to using this book in an introductory WGS course would be to spread the assignment and reading of the $ ve chap- ters across the course of the entire semester, using one or more topics

PREFACE XV

in relation to each threshold concept. " is approach would allow for in-depth time with each individual threshold concept before moving on to the next.

Instructors can $ nd more materials to support their work in the classroom using this text with the eResources (www.routledge.com/ 9781138304352). Materials available online include the following:

• web resources • additional suggested readings • full text journal articles for use with the text

A Note on the Second Edition We are grateful for all of the feedback we have received since the book’s publication in January of 2015. We have presented on the threshold concepts approach to teaching the introductory course at state, regional, and national conferences for the past several years, and have had many stimulating conversations with colleagues that have informed our revi- sions. We also received a wealth of constructive feedback from reviewers that was very useful to us as we began the process of working on the second edition. Overall, this edition includes a signi$ cant number of updates, revisions, and expansions. " ere are new opening illustrations in Chapters 4 and 5, and the case studies in all $ ve chapters are either new or have been revised and expanded. In this edition, we have sepa- rated the Works Cited section from the Suggested Readings, and have signi$ cantly revised and/or expanded the end of chapter elements for every chapter. We have also, wherever possible, updated relevant sta- tistics, and make numerous references to signi$ cant news stories and cultural developments of the past three years, including the 2015 Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, that legalized same- sex marriage, the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the Movement for Black Lives, and trans* rights activism (and backlash against it), just to name a few. We have also re-organized some sections, added many new examples, edited extensively for clarity, and moved some of the learning roadblocks so that they are more integrated into the relevant section. Finally, we have also incorporated many more “callbacks” to previous

XVI PREFACE

chapters throughout the textbook. As we have taught with the textbook, we have found it helpful to remind students to carry forward and build upon what they have learned about each threshold concept even as they move onto a new one.

Works Cited Ambrose, Susan, et al. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart

Teaching . Jossey-Bass, 2010. Berger, Michelle Tracey, and Cheryl Radelo! . Transforming Scholarship: Why Women’s

and Gender Studies Students Are Changing ! emselves and the World . Routledge, 2011.

Blake, Holly, and Melissa Ooten. “Bridging the Divide: Connecting Feminist Histories and Activism in the Classroom.” Radical History Review , vol. 102, 2008, pp. 63–72.

Calder, Lendol. “Uncoverage: Toward a Signature Pedagogy for the History Survey.” Journal of American History , vol. 92, no. 4, 2006, pp. 1358–1371.

Chick, Nancy, and Holly Hassel. “Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Virtual: Feminist Peda- gogy in the Online Classroom.” Feminist Teacher , vol. 19, no. 3, 2009, pp. 195–215.

Cousin, Glynis. “An Introduction to " reshold Concepts.” Planet , vol. 17, 2006, www. ee.ucl.ac.uk/~m# anaga/Cousin%20Planet%2017.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Crawley, Sara, et al. “Introduction: Feminist Pedagogies in Action: Teaching Beyond Disciplines.” Feminist Teacher , vol. 19, no. 1, 2008, pp. 1–12.

Hassel, Holly, and Nerissa Nelson. “A Signature Feminist Pedagogy: Connection and Transformation in Women’s Studies.” In Exploring More Signature Pedagogies . Eds. Nancy L. Chick, Regan Gurung, and Aeron Haynie. Stylus Publishing, 2012, pp. 143–155.

Levin, Amy. “Questions for a New Century: Women’s Studies and Integrative Learn- ing.” National Women’s Studies Association , 2007, www.nwsa.org/Files/Resources/ WS_Integrative_Learning_Levine.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Maher, Frances. “Inquiry Teaching and Feminist Pedagogy.” Social Education , vol. 51, no. 3, 1987, pp. 186–192.

Markowitz, Linda. “Unmasking Moral Dichotomies: Can Feminist Pedagogy Over- come Student Resistance?” Gender and Education , vol. 17, no. 1, 2005, pp. 39–55.

Meyer, Jan, and Ray Land. “" reshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge: Link- ages to Ways of " inking and Practising within the Disciplines.” Enhancing Teaching-Learning Environments in Undergraduate Courses . ETL Project. Occa- sional Report 4, 2003. https://kennslumidstod.hi.is/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/ meyerandland.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Shrewsbury, Carolyn. “What Is Feminist Pedagogy?” Women’s Studies Quarterly , vol. 3, 1993, pp. 8–16.

Stake, Jayne, and Frances Ho! man. “Putting Feminist Pedagogy to the Test.” Psychology of Women Quarterly , vol. 24, 2000, pp. 30–38.

XVII

We owe a deep debt of gratitude to our faculty colleagues in the Uni- versity of Wisconsin System Women’s Studies Consortium. " is project emerged from conversations among our fellow Women’s and Gender Studies teachers throughout the state of Wisconsin over several years. " eir expertise, critical insights, years of teaching experience, and gener- osity of time and spirit shaped this project from start to $ nish.

In particular, we thank Helen Klebesadel, director of the Women’s Studies Consortium for her tireless support and advocacy for this book; former UW System Gender and Women’s Studies Librarian Phyllis Holman Weisbard o! ered research support in the early stages of the project; and we thank both Phyllis and JoAnne Lehman, editor of Fem- inist Collections , for suggesting that we write a review of introductory WGS textbooks for Feminist Collections: A Quarterly of Women’s Stud- ies Resources , published out of the UW System O% ce of the Women’s Studies Librarian. We especially thank JoAnne Lehman for believing in the work and making publication possible.

We are also thankful to the UW System O% ce of Professional and Instructional Development for a conference mini-grant in 2011 that supported bringing together Women’s and Gender Studies instructors to discuss threshold concepts in the $ eld.

Christie would like to acknowledge the support of the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Faculty Development Program, which funded her small grant proposal. Holly is grateful to the University of Wisconsin– Marathon County, which awarded her a Summer Research Grant to

Acknowledgments

XVIII ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

complete work on this project, as well as to the UW Colleges Women’s Studies Program that has supported her work on threshold concepts in Women’s and Gender Studies in material and immaterial ways. " anks especially to Susan Rensing who helped us work through some of the initial organizational challenges of the text and provided many helpful suggestions along the way. And a thanks to our reviewers:

Courtney Jarrett Ball State University Beth Sertell Ohio University Daniel Humphrey Texas A&M University Jennifer Smith Paci$ c Lutheran University Tanya Kennedy University of Maine JoAnna Wall University of Oklahoma Shawn Maurer College of Holy Cross Danielle DeMuth Grand Valley State Desirée Henderson University of Texas, Arlington Beatrix Brockman Austin Peay State University Marta S. McClintock-Comeaux California University of Pennsylvania Lynne Bruckner Chatham University Angela Fitzpatrick Coastal Carolina University Harry Brod University of Northern Iowa Danielle Roth-Johnson University of Nevada Julia Landweber Montclair State University Lauren Martin Pennsylvania State University Murty Komanduri Fort Valley State University Jocelyn Fenton Stitt University of Michigan—Ann Arbor Katherine Pruitt Indiana University—Purdue

University—Fort Wayne Ann Marie Nicolosi " e College of New Jersey Hope Russell Niagara University Jan Wilson University of Tulsa

And a number of other anonymous reviewers.

Christie Launius and Holly Hassel

1

1 Introduction

Figure 1.1 Artist Anat Ronen blends images and words of Malala Yousafzai with imag- ery of Rosie the Riveter Source: www.anatronen.com

2 INTRODUCTION

Why “Ways of Seeing, ! inking, and Knowing”? Women’s and Gender Studies (WGS) courses are a common feature on a large number of college and university campuses, with over 700 pro- grams in the United States alone. Many students take an introductory WGS course as a part of their general education requirements, whereas others wind up in our classrooms as a result of word-of-mouth advertis- ing from peers and roommates. A smaller number of students eagerly seek out WGS courses when they get to college after encountering Women’s and Gender Studies in their high school curriculum.

In their book Transforming Scholarship: Why Women’s and Gender Studies Students Are Changing ! emselves and the World, Michele Tracy Berger and Cheryl Radelo! state that “students pursuing questions in women’s and gender studies are part of an emerging vanguard of knowledge producers in the US and globally” (5). " is is to say, WGS is an exciting, vibrant, and growing # eld. " is textbook aims to introduce you to the ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing that characterize the # eld and are valued by its practitioners. " ese ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing can then be used throughout your academic study, not just in WGS courses. More fundamentally, these ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing can be (and perhaps should be) taken out of the classroom and into the world. In fact, the bridging of the divide between academia and the so-called real world is a big part of what Women’s and Gender Studies is all about.

" e image at the beginning of this chapter (see Figure 1.1) emphasizes this real-world engagement. " e words and image of Malala Yousafzai, a young Pakistani woman, are highlighted because her struggle— to gain access to education for girls in a Pakistani area in which the Tali- ban has prohibited it—illustrates how feminist ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing are actualized. " e image, invoking the historically signi# - cant “Rosie the Riveter” pose that has come to symbolize U.S. women’s entrance into the workforce in the mid-20th century, shows the his- torical roots of feminist movement and how they continue to in$ uence women’s activism for gender justice worldwide.

Using ! is Book As you approach this text, we want to direct your attention to the ways that we have organized it in order to provide an introduction to the

INTRODUCTION 3

ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing in Women’s and Gender Stud- ies. Each chapter is structured in purposeful ways in order to introduce you to the de# nitions of the threshold concept and to o! er grounding examples that will deepen your understanding:

• The opening illustration in each chapter invites you to consider how the concept is relevant to day-to-day life, either current events, popular culture, historical moments, or other spaces.

• We have indicated in each chapter how the concept suggests a “fem- inist stance,” or ways of looking at the world.

• Threshold concepts are defined, as are related or supporting con- cepts from research, theory, or scholarship that are critical to under- standing the ideas in the chapter.

• Each chapter includes examples of “learning roadblocks,” or the kinds of barriers to fully understanding the threshold concept that students typically encounter. We’ve drawn from our many years of teaching introductory Women’s and Gender Studies courses as well as conversations with colleagues to identify these roadblocks as well as explain why they are common misconceptions, and how students can move past them.

• In order to illustrate in a fuller way how the threshold concept oper- ates in interdisciplinary forms, each of the concepts is discussed through the lens of “anchoring topics,” or key ideas that will root the concept within three overlapping and related areas of inquiry within Women’s and Gender Studies: work and family; language, images, and symbols; and gendered bodies. As you engage with each of the chapters, you’ll develop not only a new understanding of the thresh- old concept in that chapter, but an increasingly deepening sense of how each of the anchoring topics is “inflected” by the concepts.

• Each chapter contains a case study that, like the opening illustra- tion, is intended to bring the threshold concept to life for readers and to help you see how it can be understood through specific cultural, historical, or other phenomena.

• Finally, at the end of the chapter, you’ll find exercises and other ways to test your understanding of the chapter material, to engage in conversation with classmates, to write about the topic, and to apply what you’ve learned to other contexts.

4 INTRODUCTION

We hope that this organizational structure will create multiple ways of “trying on” feminist ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing in aca- demic and nonacademic spaces.

Feminism, Stereotypes, and Misconceptions First and foremost, in order to understand terms like “feminist stance” and the idea that there are feminist ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing, some de# nitions of feminism are in order. As a term, feminism has a his- tory; according to Estelle Freedman, it was “# rst coined in France in the 1880s as feminisme ,” (3) and made its way to the United States by the # rst decade of the 20th century. It was not used widely in the United States until the 1960s, however. In No Turning Back: ! e History of Feminism and the Future of Women, Freedman o! ers a four-part de# nition of feminism: “Feminism is a belief that women and men are inherently of equal worth. Because most societies privilege men as a group, social movements are necessary to achieve equality between women and men, with the under- standing that gender always intersects with other social hierarchies” (7). In Feminist ! eory from Margin to Center , bell hooks o! ers a succinct def- inition of feminism as “the struggle to end sexist oppression” (26). She goes on to argue that understanding and de# ning feminism in this way “directs our attention to systems of domination and the inter-relatedness of sex , race, and class oppression” (31). She concludes, “[t]he foundation of future feminist struggle must be solidly based on a recognition of the need to eradicate the underlying cultural basis and causes of sexism and other forms of group oppression” (31). Given these de# nitions, a feminist, then, is quite simply someone who advocates feminism. Each of the four threshold concepts that this book is structured around is implicit, if not explicit, in both Freedman’s and hooks’s de# nitions: the social construction of gender , the concepts of privilege and oppression , intersectionality , and praxis .

Advocating feminism or being a feminist can take many forms; in this book we emphasize the idea of taking a so-called feminist stance, which is to say, adopting a feminist perspective or way of looking at the world. As Crawley and colleagues assert,

Although feminism is, in substance, always attentive to power di! erences that create inequalities, particularly those that create

INTRODUCTION 5

di! erential opportunities for women and men (but also those that create racial and ethnic, class-based, or sexuality-based inequali- ties), feminism is also an epistemological shift away from a history of androcentric bias in the sciences, social sciences, and humani- ties. As such, it is not just an “area study” (again, not just about “women”) but something much deeper: a way of orienting to aca- demic work that is attuned to power relations, both within the academy and within knowledge construction itself.

(2)

We will discuss this at more length in the section on the history of Women’s and Gender Studies as an academic # eld.

It also seems important to address here at the outset any lingering misconceptions about feminism and feminists. Many stereotypes and misconceptions about feminism, feminists, and the # eld of Women’s and Gender Studies circulate in our culture. " ese stereotypes and misconceptions pop up in the right-wing blogosphere and so-called lad mags like Maxim, but also in magazines like Time and Newsweek, in Hollywood movies and television shows, and in everyday conversa- tions. Most students taking this course have probably heard quite a few of them. If you’re curious about whether your friends, family, cowork- ers, and others believe those stereotypes and misconceptions, try this exercise: make an announcement on the social media platform of your choice that you’re taking this class, and see what sorts of responses are made and what sorts of conversations develop. Chances are, people will supply some of the following (and maybe come up with di! erent ones as well):

• Feminism is dead. This misconception is invoked as a way to try to derail or shut down a discussion of gender inequality, a way to dis- miss someone’s critique by saying that we no longer need feminism because equality has already been achieved. The most charitable read on this stereotype is that people look at the real gains made by feminism and mistakenly assume that the need for feminism has passed. In this scenario, the person claiming that equality has already been achieved is likely experiencing the world from a position of

6 INTRODUCTION

relative privilege. The misconception doesn’t just get perpetuated on an individual level, however; it is a frequent headline in the news media. In response to Time ’s cover story in 1998 declaring feminism dead, feminist writer Erica Jong noted that “there have been no less than 119 articles in the magazine sticking pins in feminism during the last 25 years.” All of this raises the question, as Jessica Valenti puts it, “if feminism is dead, then why do people have to keep on trying to kill it?” (11).

• Feminists are ugly, hairy, braless, don’t wear makeup, etc. Emphasis on the ugly. A feature called “Cure a Feminist,” which appeared in the November 2003 issue of Maxim, does a good job of illustrating this stereotype. 1 It features four images of the same woman wearing different clothing and displaying different body language that pur- port to show the transformation from feminist to “actual girl.” The “feminist” is wearing baggy jeans and a so-called wifebeater tank top with no bra. Her hair is messy, and her arm is raised to reveal a hairy armpit. She also has a cigarette dangling from her mouth, and she is standing with legs apart, with one hand hooked into the pocket of her jeans. By the end of her transformation, she is wearing nothing but a lacy bra and panties with high heels, standing with one hip jutted out and her hand tugging her underwear down. Her hair is styled and she is wearing makeup. The intent of this stereo- type is fairly simplistic and transparent, but nonetheless hard to shake. As Jessica Valenti puts it, “[t]he easiest way to keep women— especially young women—away from feminism is to threaten them with the ugly stick. It’s also the easiest way to dismiss someone and her opinions” (8–9).

• Feminists hate men. The Maxim piece hits this stereotype, too. The implication here is that feminism is a hate-filled vendetta against individual men. The thought bubble coming out of the so-called feminist’s mouth says, “There’d be no more wars if all penises were cut off ! Argh!” This misconception is a strategy to dismiss and mischaracterize feminism and feminists, by individualizing feminist concerns and seeing feminism as a battle of the sexes, rather than a structural analysis of systems of privilege and inequality. A more accurate characterization recognizes that feminism is interested in

INTRODUCTION 7

critiquing and combating sexism and patriarchy , not hating or bashing individual men.

• Only women can be feminists. It is clear, in the Maxim feature and elsewhere, that the default assumption is that only women would want to be feminists, given that feminists hate men, and that only women stand to gain from feminism. This view is increasingly being challenged, not only because a growing number of men are com- mitted to being strong feminist allies to the women in their lives, but also because men increasingly see the ways in which they are harmed by adhering to traditional masculine norms. These men are stepping outside of the so-called man box and are modeling femi- nist forms of masculinity .

• Feminists are lesbians (or male feminists are gay). This misconception often circulates as a dissuasion strategy that is sometimes referred to as “lesbian-baiting” or “gay-baiting,” that is, as a way of capital- izing on social stigma within some communities to scare people away from openly identifying as feminist or even supporting key principles of gender equity. As philosopher Sue Cataldi has argued, “[t]he use of this word is a scare tactic. It is intended to frighten people away from affiliating with or associating with feminism” (80). In addition to harnessing the social power of homophobia to discredit feminist action and theory, this particular stereotype serves the purpose of reinforcing traditional gender scripts and sex- ualities. As Suzanne Pharr explains in “Homophobia as a Weapon of Sexism”:

What does a woman have to do to get called a lesbian? Almost anything, sometimes nothing at all, but certainly anything that threatens the status quo, anything that steps out of role, anything that asserts the rights of women, anything that doesn’t include submission or subordination.

(73) • Feminism is solely for privileged (read: white, cisgender, straight, mid-

dle class) women interested in equality with similarly situated men. This stereotype is a bit different than the others in that it is born out of a history of feminism in the U.S. that is marked by moments

8 INTRODUCTION

of outright exclusion of women of color, working-class women, and lesbians, as well as the downplaying or ignoring of issues impor- tant to them. The important point here is to acknowledge this past while also acknowledging that women of color, working-class women, lesbians, etc. have also always been engaged in feminist activism. In recent years, the contemporary feminist movement has made important strides toward becoming fully intersectional, even as it still has a long way to go, as evidenced by the Janu- ary 2017 Women’s March on Washington. While the march was initially referred to as the Million Women’s March, intersectional feminists quickly pointed out that this replicated and appropri- ated the name of a march led by African American women in 1997. After this early organizing misstep, the march changed its name and came to be organized and led by a truly diverse group of women who crafted a deeply intersectional platform assert- ing that “Gender Justice is Racial Justice is Economic Justice.” Even so, many women of color felt unwelcome at the march, and many white women bristled at being asked to check their (white) privilege.

" e e! ect of these stereotypes and misconceptions: many people, particularly young women, are reluctant to identify as feminists. " e title of Lisa Hogeland’s oft-anthologized essay, originally published in Ms. Magazine in 1994, spells it out: “Fear of Feminism: Why Young Women Get the Willies.” Hogeland explains, aptly and pointedly, that at least one reason is

" e central feminist tenet that the personal is political is pro- foundly threatening to young women who don’t want to be called to account. It is far easier to rest in silence, as if silence were neu- trality, and as if neutrality were safety.

" at is, calling into question current gender arrangements requires peo- ple to actively and consciously challenge the ways that gender inequality persists instead of, as Hogeland states, “hide from feminist issues by not being feminists.”

INTRODUCTION 9

More recently, feminist blogger Julie Zeilinger has jumped into the fray, and the title of her book indicates that what she calls a “P.R.- problem” with feminism is still going on: A Little F’d Up: Why Femi- nism Is Not a Dirty Word (2012). Both Zeilinger and Jessica Valenti, among many others, bemoan what they call the “I’m not a feminist, but .  .  .” phenomenon, in which people express feminist ideas and opinions but disavow the label. " eir response is to argue that most young people are feminists, but, as Zeilinger puts it, “" ey just don’t know it” (79). Or as Valenti titles the # rst chapter of Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters: “You’re a hardcore feminist. I swear” (5). In sum, while both Zeilinger and Valenti grant that the stereotypes and misconceptions about feminism and feminists continue to swirl through our news media and popu- lar culture, and get internalized and perpetuated by many, they clearly believe that, with a dose of corrective information to counter the ste- reotypes, people can and do see them for what they are, which is an attempt to undermine feminism.

Proof that attitudes about gender equality have changed is abun- dant, as documented, for example, in the results of a survey by the Pew Research Center, which shows that almost three-quarters of young adults under the age of 30 seek equal partnership marriages (see Figure 1.2).

Stephanie Coontz cites this research as a positive sign of feminist progress, but she follows up by showing that in reality, many couples have a very hard time putting these aspirations into practice. In “Why Gender Equality Stalled,” she argues that the

main barriers to further progress toward gender equity no longer lie in people’s personal attitudes and relationships. Instead, struc- tural impediments prevent people from acting on their egalitarian values, forcing men and women into personal accommodations and rationalizations that do not re$ ect their preferences.

" e structural impediments Coontz is referring to are the gender wage gap, the relative absence of family-friendly workplace policies, and the lack of high-quality a! ordable and accessible childcare. How does this

10 INTRODUCTION

relate back to the stereotypes and misconceptions about feminism and feminists, you ask?

" e fact that almost three-quarters of people under 30 aspire to an egalitarian marriage shows that the discrediting of feminism and fem- inist values through the dissemination of stereotypes has largely not succeeded, at least in terms of the attitudes documented by research. On the other hand, however, the demonization or dismissal of feminism has succeeded insofar as the couples who try and fail to enact their egalitar- ian values tend to think of their failure in personal, rather than political, terms. In other words, they think that the problem lies with them rather than with broader, structural factors outside of their immediate control. And most crucially, they are less likely to turn those feelings of personal failure into a recognition that this is a political issue that could be and is being addressed by feminists and feminist organizations. Debunking and o! ering rebuttals to those stereotypes about feminism and feminists is not just (or only) about countering myth with reality, then, but about helping to give people the necessary tools and perspectives they need to change the world in ways that allow them to, as Stephanie Coontz puts it, “put their gender values into practice.” All of this illustrates why the feminist mantra of the second wave, “" e personal is political,” reso- nates across issues and experience.

Figure 1.2 Young adults favor dual income marriage Source: Pew Research Center survey, conducted Oct 1–21, 2010, N = 2, 691. Q wording: What kind of marriage do you think is the more satisfying way of life? One where the husband provides for the family and the wife takes care of the house and children, or one where the husband and wife both have jobs and both take care of the house and children.

INTRODUCTION 11

Feminist ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing provide tools for the critical analysis of stereotypes about feminism and feminists. Calling yourself a feminist (or advocating feminism, as bell hooks puts it) may or may not be the outcome of trying on these ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing, and in any case, that’s not the point. " e point is to clear the space for everyone to consider feminism on its own terms, free from bias and distortion.

! e History of Feminist Movement " e awareness of gendered inequality and women’s (and male allies’) e! orts to eliminate inequality has a long history. However, in terms of organized activism on the part of women’s groups in the United States to address long-standing oppressions such as a lack of civil rights, access to higher education and the professions, inequitable treatment by the legal system, and a lack of social and cultural status, the history is more recent.

It should be noted that the term most commonly used to describe feminist activism in the United States is waves , with chronological groupings of the # rst wave, beginning in the mid-19th century and pro- gressing through the early 20th century; the second wave, starting in the mid-1960s; and the third wave, starting in the early 1990s. How- ever, this is largely an organizational convenience and may not only overshadow the ongoing, active e! orts on the part of many activists to challenge patriarchal values, norms, and practices, but also overem- phasize the contributions of white and middle-class feminists. In what follows we will acknowledge the “waves” narrative while simultaneously complicating it.

" e # rst wave of feminism is widely considered to have its origins in the activist e! orts of a group of early feminists: Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton attempted to attend the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London in 1840 and were barred from participating because of their sex. In 1848, Mott and Stanton joined Martha Wright, Mary Ann McClintock, and Jane Hunt in organizing a two-day meet- ing of women to be held at a church in Seneca Falls, New York. Several hundred people attended, and another 100 (68 women and 32 men)

12 INTRODUCTION

signed the document drafted by Stanton, “Declaration of Sentiments,” modeled on the U.S. Declaration of Independence. It included the # rst formal demand for access to the “elective franchise,” or voting rights, for women, and claimed:

" e history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usur- pations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

" e document not only made demands for property rights and the right to participate civically including voting, but also for recourse in the case of marital abuse and custodial authority over their chil- dren in the case of divorce. It also demanded greater participation in the activities of the church and access to educational and professional opportunities.

An issue that feminists and su! rage activists dedicated a great deal of attention to was the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) , introduced in 1923 as an e! ort to cast in policy equal rights for women. How- ever, it took 50 years before the amendment passed both houses of the legislature and ultimately, because it could not win the rati# cation requirements of 38 states, the amendment failed to be adopted. " e text of the amendment reads as follows:

• Section 1 . Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

• Section 2 . The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appro- priate legislation, the provisions of this article.

• Section 3 . This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. 2

Consider that, although many feminist organizations campaigned tire- lessly for the passage of the ERA, a strong and vocal minority of women activists, notably Phyllis Schla$ y, campaigned against it in the 1970s. " ey argued that it would eradicate a number of privileges that women

INTRODUCTION 13

enjoyed on the basis of their primary roles as wives and mothers, includ- ing entitlement to maintenance (alimony) and child support in the case of divorce and protection from being drafted in times of war. " e ERA’s opponents also attempted to incite fear and shore up opposition to the amendment by claiming that gender-segregated public restrooms would be illegal if the amendment passed. It is interesting to note that a similar kind of “bathroom panic” is in evidence in recent attempts to regulate which public restrooms transgender individuals can use.

" e narrative of the # rst wave of feminism has been challenged by Paula Gunn Allen in her book ! e Sacred Hoop , where she notes that a full 250 years prior to the Seneca Falls convention, Iroquois women held great power and were respected within their communities. She argues that the women-led tribes of the American continent “provided the basis for all the dreams of liberation that characterize the mod- ern world,” although they are rarely credited with having done so. " is supports some of the critiques that have been made in the past about early feminist movement, focusing primarily on the rights and activism of middle-class white women without a clear focus on equivalent civic activism for women of color and working-class women.

Since these early e! orts at achieving su! rage—women were granted the right to vote in 1920 when the 19th Amendment was rati# ed—feminist activism since the late 1960s has focused on an array of issues widely considered to be the “second wave” of feminist activism. Early feminist activism in the U.S. focused on gaining rights for women as citizens of the United States; feminist activism start- ing in the 1970s maintained this focus while adding an additional focus on tackling the cultural and interpersonal dimensions of sex- ism. Issues during the 1960s and 1970s included: reproductive justice, including not just the ability to prevent conception and terminate unwanted pregnancy but also the freedom from involuntary steril- ization; access to prenatal care and breastfeeding support; expanded educational and occupational opportunities; access to other politi- cal and civic rights; safety from violence; and elimination of cultural sexism including sexual objecti" cation , lower social status, and the socialization of women to meet the needs of men. Strong, tangible

14 INTRODUCTION

gains were made in the 1960s and 1970s in particular, during the height of the second wave of feminism, including:

• National, legal access to contraceptive technologies, including the contraceptive pill, which was prohibited by law prior to 1965.

• National, legal access to abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, with the landmark ruling in Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court in 1973.

• The establishment of women’s organizations such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), founded in 1966, largely focused on equal opportunity in the workplace.

• Advocacy for equal pay. In the 1970s, women made, on average, 52 cents to the average man’s dollar; today, that hovers around 80.8 percent of the male dollar, still short of equality. When break- ing these numbers down by race, they are even more troubling: as the Institute for Women’s Policy Research documents, the percent- ages fall to 68.1 percent for black women and 59.3 percent for His- panic women (Institute).

• Activism for legislation like the Equal Pay Act (1963), intended to ensure equal wages for all workers, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex; the Civil Rights Act (1964), for the protection from harassment on the basis of sex; the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978), which protected women from job loss or consequences on the basis of pregnancy.

• Prevention of gender-based violence, including establishment of Take Back the Night rallies (1976); creation of Rape Shield Laws in the 1970s and 1980s on the state level preventing a rape victim’s past sexual history from being used as evidence in a rape trial; formation of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (1978); and the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (1994), which offered coordinated efforts to develop awareness and prevent violence.

• Passage of Title IX . This part of the Education Amendments of 1972 guarantees equal participation in any educational program or activity that receives federal financial resources. Although pri- marily associated with advancing women’s equal participation in athletic activities, Title IX also affected women’s achievement of

INTRODUCTION 15

postsecondary degrees and pay equity within schools, and protec- tion from any other discrimination taking place within an educa- tional setting (“Fast Facts”).

• Social advocacy for programs like affordable childcare; social safety nets to support poor women; and rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters for women who have been victims of violence.

In addition to these tangible gains, second-wave feminism changed American culture in substantial ways. In Feminism Un" nished, historian Linda Gordon likens second-wave feminism to a “powerful and fast- $ owing river” that

radically changed the terrain. It moved rocks, carved out new courses, and deposited new soil, producing new gender structures. " e new riverbed was felt everywhere: in health, in reproductive choices, media and culture, employment, parenting, education, sex, and man-woman, woman-woman, and parent-child relations.

(75)

" e changes brought about by feminist action were absorbed into the culture at large throughout the 1970s and 1980s, even as there was active resistance in the form of anti-feminist backlash, which will be discussed in more depth in Chapter 5.

A third wave of feminism arose in the early 1990s, sparked by the Supreme Court con# rmation hearings of Justice Clarence " omas. " e hearings were marked by accusations that " omas had sexually harassed Anita Hill when she worked for him at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. " e televised hearings riveted and outraged many, as Hill was subjected to harsh and dismissive questioning, and " omas pushed back against the accusa- tions, calling the hearings a “high-tech lynching.” " omas’s remark referenced the nation’s shameful history of white mobs lynching Afri- can American men for supposed sexual misbehavior, thus casting the hearings in a racial frame. Many others attempted to read the episode primarily using a gender frame, highlighting the ways that Hill’s accusa- tions of sexual harassment were belittled and dismissed by both " omas

16 INTRODUCTION

and the white male senators conducting the hearings. Chapter 4 ’s focus on intersectionality will delve further into the dangers of a single-axis analysis and explore the political and analytical developments of an intersectional approach that is able to analyze incidents such as this one in all its complexity.

Rebecca Walker, daughter of prominent second-wave feminist Alice Walker, penned what became the rallying cry for third-wave feminists. In her essay, “Becoming the " ird Wave,” Walker sounded the call for a revitalization of feminist activism that in particular was aimed at young women who were literally or metaphorically the daughters of second- wave feminists. Subsequently, feminist movement in the United States has focused on continued e! orts for workplace rights for all women, work–life balance policies, elimination of rape culture and the reduction of violence against women; equality within institutions like religious institutions and the military; resistance to the objecti# cation of women in the media and popular culture; racial justice; and LGBTQ rights. We will survey many contemporary feminist activist issues, tactics, and strategies in Chapter 5.

Contemporary feminism in the U.S. has also taken a more global turn, with the identi# cation of issues that transcend national borders and the creation of transnational feminist organizations. Feminist activism and advocacy has particularly focused on girls and young women in recent years, especially girls’ education, with a growing understanding that keeping girls in school is a key to improving their lives by a number of measures. And keeping girls in school requires tackling all of the factors that cause them to drop out, including not just child marriage, but also a lack of access to menstrual products, and lack of easy access to water (which in many parts of the world requires that girls spend large chunks of their days obtaining water and carrying it back to their homes). More broadly, global feminist activists focus on economic equality for women and the overall undervaluing of women’s labor, equal political representation of women in leadership positions, as well as environmental issues. " ey also focus on preventing forms of patriarchal violence 3 like sex-selective abortion and son preference, honor killings , the treatment of women as a form of property, female infanticide , female genital cutting/female circumcision , intimate partner violence and marital rape, sex work

INTRODUCTION 17

and sex tra& cking, and pornography. Feminists around the globe use a variety of strategies and tactics in their work on these issues. Sometimes they disagree about the best approach, as in the cases of sex work and pornography, in which some advocate legalization, reform, and regula- tion by the state, whereas others argue for abolition.

Returning to the second wave of feminism in the U.S., which arose in the late 1960s, part of that activist work centered on the dearth of scholarly and academic work by and about women, as well as the desire for an institutional and educational infrastructure that could support and implement feminist work. Out of these motivations, the # eld of women’s studies emerged.

Women’s and Gender Studies as an Academic Field As a # eld of academic study, with courses, faculty, and majors and minors, Women’s and Gender Studies stretches back over 40 years, with the # rst women’s studies courses and programs created in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

" e further away we get from the founding of the # eld, the harder it is to remember what higher education was like prior to its creation. In their Prologue to Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future , Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards open with a vignette about what life was like in the United States in 1970 (the year they were born). In the section on higher education, they remind us that in 1970 there were still a small number of colleges and universities that barred women from enrolling, and that women’s colleges were still referred to as “girls’ schools.” " ey also note that many campuses maintained curfew times for female students who lived in the dorms.

" e timing of the # eld’s creation is no coincidence; as mentioned ear- lier, it came into being in the United States during the second wave of feminism, or the women’s liberation movement. Indeed, for many years afterward, women’s studies was often referred to as the academic arm of the women’s movement. Professors and students who identi# ed as feminists began questioning and critiquing many aspects of higher edu- cation, including what was being taught, how it was being taught, and by whom. " ey pointed out that women’s experiences and perspectives

18 INTRODUCTION

were for the most part absent in the curriculum, and they also noted the relative absence of women in the ranks of professors and administrators. According to Marilyn J. Boxer, the absence of women’s voices and per- spectives in academia itself constituted a “hidden curriculum of women’s second-class status.” She continues, “[i]n this view, courses that ignored women’s experiences and perspectives subtly reinforced old ideas about female intellectual de# ciencies while also perpetuating women’s social, economic, and political marginality” (43). For example, students and professors in English departments began to question why there were so few women authors included in literary anthologies and therefore on course syllabi. Professors’ e! orts to rectify that situation led to the exploration of broader issues such as canon formation and the role of publishers and critics. During this initial period of # eld development, the main question was, “Where are the women?”

In creating new courses and undertaking new research projects that focused on women and placed their experiences at the center of inquiry, early practitioners realized that they both wanted and needed to go beyond the boundaries of any single academic discipline. Feminist schol- ars interested in researching motherhood, for example, not only wanted to explore how motherhood had been represented in literature, but also wanted to look at psychological theories of motherhood, or sociological studies that were focused on interviewing women about their experi- ences of motherhood. " e new courses and scholarship, then, frequently had a multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary approach. " is emphasis has endured within the # eld; for example, the scholarship cited in this text- book comes from the # elds of history, psychology, sociology, literary studies, public health, and media studies, to name a few. Today, Women’s and Gender Studies programs have become the academic home of the courses and scholarship that go beyond the boundaries of a single dis- cipline. In addition, disciplinary courses and scholarship with a feminist focus continue to thrive; the di! erence in these courses is that they are more focused on the conventions and conversations that practitioners of a single # eld are interested in.

Over the last four decades, women’s studies has grown not just in terms of its numbers and reach across campuses, but also in terms of how it de# nes and understands its focus and objects of inquiry. For

INTRODUCTION 19

example, while the # eld # rst started as “women’s studies,” the forms of academic inquiry about gender, and new theories, paradigms, and empirical evidence, have resulted in a # eld of study more accurately titled “women’s and gender studies,” or “gender, sexuality, and women’s stud- ies,” or sometimes more pointedly, “feminist studies.” Titles of programs or departments or courses often re$ ect the interests and emphases of particular institutions or faculty in postsecondary education.

If the initial question of the # eld was “Where are the women?”, by the 1980s that question had shifted to “Which women?” Feminist his- torian Estelle Freedman explains the shift this way: “I believe that we must question both the assumption that the term man includes woman as well as the assumption that the term woman represents the diver- sity of female experience” (8). It was during this period that one of the threshold concepts of this book, intersectionality, began to be developed by women of color who correctly noted the limitations of scholarship that did not incorporate considerations of di! erence. " is concept is the focus of Chapter 4.

" e name changes that included the terms gender and sexuality re$ ect the fact that today, research and teaching are often focused not exclusively on women, but also on men and masculinity, and look even further, to the questioning of gender as a binary construct. " us, for example, we are seeing the emergence of courses on trans* issues and identities. At the same time, many programs have incorporated content and degree programs in LGBTQ Studies and the study of sexuality more generally. Finally, the # eld has also become increasingly global and comparative in focus. " e National Women’s Studies Association notes that the # eld draws on the “conceptual claims and theoretical practices of transnationalism, which focus on cultures, structures, and relation- ships that are formed as a result of the $ ows of people and resources across geopolitical borders.”

Today, the glass is simultaneously half-full and half-empty. On the one hand, huge strides have been made in terms of the numbers of col- leges and universities o! ering courses, minors, and majors in WGS; in terms of the broader integration of gender issues across the curriculum; and in terms of the numbers of women who are professors and adminis- trators. Many students # nd that they are introduced to issues of gender

20 INTRODUCTION

and sexuality in any number of college courses, only some of which are explicitly designated as Women’s and Gender Studies courses. On the other hand, however, women are still overrepresented among the ranks of temporary, part-time, and adjunct faculty, and are woefully under- represented in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) # elds. According to the White House O& ce of Science and Technology Policy, for example, women today currently earn 41 percent of PhDs in STEM # elds, but make up only 28 percent of tenure-track faculty in those # elds.

Some disciplines more than others have been slow to integrate con- tent on women, gender, and feminism into their curricula; philosophy is a good example. Not coincidentally, philosophy also has some of the lowest numbers of female faculty members. A Chronicle of Higher Edu- cation story explains that women earned

31 percent of bachelor’s degrees in philosophy in 2006–7, com- pared with 41 percent in history, 45 percent in mathematics, 60 percent in biology, and 69 percent in English, to name several other # elds. Moreover, women earned just 27 percent of phi- losophy doctorates in 2006, and they currently make up only 21 percent of professional philosophers.

(Penaluna)

Some theories about these low numbers include explanations ranging from the content itself—the canon of philosophy is almost exclusively made up of male philosophers, or as Penaluna argues, “the canon is sex- ist and there is little being done about it.” Other theories include the low regard for feminist philosophy, overt sexism or misogyny within the # eld of academic philosophy, and historical associations between men/masculinity and analysis and logic, the hallmarks of academic philosophy.

" e progress that has been made in academic and nonacademic set- tings is in some ways a double-edged sword. As Howe explains:

In short, students—and some younger faculty as well—may have two di! erent kinds of experiences today: A majority may still be

INTRODUCTION 21

where we were thirty years ago, unknowingly in a male-centered curriculum; a minority may think that women have always been a part of the curriculum.

(29)

" is text aims to introduce you to the many important achievements of feminist work—as well as draw attention to how a feminist stance or lens can make visible the additional work to be done to gain full social equality for all.

Case Study: Assessing Pop Culture Feminist critics apply the lens of gender (and race and sexuality) to a variety of settings; both inside and outside academia, those devoted to gender justice have devoted much time and attention to how popular culture can both reinforce and challenge dominant ideas about gender. Ellen Willis, Manohla Dargis, GLAAD, and Allison Bechdel have all created “tests” for critically evaluating pop culture artifacts.

In 1971 pioneering feminist rock critic Ellen Willis suggested a test for measuring sexism in the lyrics of songs—take a song written by a man about a woman, reverse the sexes, and analyze the assumptions that are revealed. In a 2011 post on Jezebel, Erin Carmon dusted o! the test and applied it to Justin Bieber’s “One Less Lonely Girl,” pointing out that reversing the sexes in this song reveals a condescendingly sexist attitude.

In a 1985 comic strip, “Dykes to Watch Out For,” Allison Bechdel introduced a method for assessing gender bias in narratives: # ction, # lm, TV shows—any text that o! ers a storyline. In order to pass the test, so to speak, the narrative must feature: 1) at least two women characters; 2) who speak to each other; 3) about something other than a man. Visit the Bechdel test website to see how your favorite (or least favorite) # lms pass or fail this test of gender and sexism in media. 4 Anita Sarkeesian discusses “" e Oscars and the Bechdel Test” on her website, Feminist Frequency. 5 Keep this approach in mind as you read about gender and the Oscars in Chapter 2.

In a related vein, the Vito Russo test (named after the author of the groundbreaking 1981 book ! e Celluloid Closet , which explored

22 INTRODUCTION

representations of gay characters in Hollywood # lm from the 1920s forward) was created by GLAAD in 2013 to assess both whether and how people with LGBT identities are depicted in # lms. " e bar for passing is a bit higher in the Russo test than the Bechdel test, which mainly focuses on the presence or absence of women in a narrative, and not what they say or how they are depicted. According to GLAAD, 6 in order to pass the Russo test, a # lm must 1) contain a character who is recognizably lesbian, gay, bisexual, and/or transgender; 2) that character must not be de# ned solely by their sexual orientation or gender identity; and 3) they must be embedded in the narrative in a meaningful way, as opposed to being the object of humor, for example. GLAAD’s purpose in creating the Russo test is explicitly activist; the organization provides a report each year on how many Hollywood # lms pass the test, with the aim, as their website puts it, of providing a “standard GLAAD expects a greater number of mainstream Hollywood # lms to reach in the future.”

And # nally, in 2016, # lm critic Manohla Dargis $ oated the idea of a “Duvernay test,” named after # lm director Ava Duvernay. Dargis was responding to the fact that Duvernay’s critically acclaimed # lm Selma , about the 1965 civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, AL, only received two Oscar nominations, which was widely perceived as a snub, and more speci# cally, as symptomatic of persistent racial inequality in Hollywood. Dargis stated that in order to pass the test, a # lm would have to have a narrative in which “African-Americans and other minorities have fully realized lives rather than serve as scenery in white stories.” " e overall lack of # lms featuring the stories of people of color, and more speci# cally, the lack of recognition of the # lms that do, prompted writer and editor April Reign to create the hashtag #oscarssowhite in 2015. As with GLAAD, the aim of Reign and Dargis is activist; in par- ticular, Reign’s hashtag, which went viral and received widespread media attention, was intended not just to critique the Oscars, but to jolt the # lm industry into change.

All of these tests show how critics use gender, race, and/or sexuality as lenses to analyze pop culture artifacts, as well as how the results of those tests can be used to advocate for change in the industries that produce them. " ese tests also demonstrate how the work of feminist intellec- tuals is not contained within academia but extends out to the general

INTRODUCTION 23

public in an e! ort to increase levels of media literacy. We encourage you to give one or more of these measures a try next time you’re listening to music, streaming a movie, or watching your favorite television show.

End of Chapter Elements Evaluating Prior Knowledge 1. Where have you encountered feminism, feminist activism, or anti-

racist gender justice efforts in other contexts—your family, friends, school, media and popular culture, etc.? What are your major assumptions about the goals of feminist movement?

2. Which of the stereotypes and misconceptions about feminism and feminists discussed in this chapter have you encountered before? Where and in what context?

Application Exercises 1. To further investigate the Bechdel test and the Russo test, select two

or three of your favorite films. Watch them again with a specific and careful eye toward dialogue, action, and interaction between char- acters. Do they “pass” one or both tests? What would the films look like if they did? How would they look different, and what would need to be added or changed in order to increase the representation and depth of the women/LGBT characters in it?

2. View the 2004 film Iron-Jawed Angels, an account of the suffrage movement. Write out responses in which you explore the follow- ing questions: Why did 19th-century activists focus so heavily on women’s right to vote? In what ways is it a significant form of civic participation? What other issues might have been neglected because of a focus on suffrage, and why?

Skills Assessment 1. Consider your own educational experiences. To what degree has the

study of gender and the inclusion of women been (a) made visible? (b) part of the curriculum? (c) taken for granted? That is, in history courses, were you taught about women’s roles and contributions, or

24 INTRODUCTION

did your studies focus primarily on military and political history? In literature courses, did you read work by women writers? Are there other examples of gender equity or inequity that stand out to you from your own academic experiences? In your answers, consider your experiences in elementary school, middle school, high school, and college.

Discussion Questions 1. Feminist bell hooks argues in Feminism Is for Everybody that femi-

nists in developed countries have oversimplified feminist thinking, charging that

linking circumcision with life-threatening eating disorders (which are the direct consequence of a culture imposing thinness as a beauty ideal) or any life-threatening cosmetic surgery would emphasize that the sexism, the misogyny, underlying these prac- tices globally mirror the sexism here in this country.

(47) That is, bell hooks asks us to consider the relationship between

various forms of social control over women’s bodies and whether one is more horrific than another (and if not, whose interests are served by ranking them so). Do these parallels ring true to you? Why or why not?

2. Review the core principles of the ERA described in this chapter. What arguments can you see being made in favor of the ERA? What arguments do you imagine being made against it? Which do you see as more persuasive, and why?

3. Read the Unity Principles of the Women’s March on Washington (www.womensmarch.com/principles/). What did you learn about the concerns and priorities of the contemporary feminist move- ment from this document? Were any of the issues surprising to you? If so, why?

Writing Prompts 1. Reflection: When people talk about feminism as “political,” they

often mean very different things. Critics of feminism and Women’s

INTRODUCTION 25

and Gender Studies argue that it’s focused on electoral politics and partisan issues (like abortion or pay equity) and therefore is not academic. Proponents use “political” to mean that it is rooted in concepts of power. Which meaning resonates the most with you? What examples can you think of to illustrate it?

2. Select one of the following feminist issues mentioned in this chap- ter and do some Internet research. What is the current status of that issue? What policy or legislative efforts are currently at work in that issue? How do you see the issue in your own day-to-day life? • Access to contraception • Access to safe, legal abortion • Access to breastfeeding support and space • Social support services including Temporary Assistance for

Needy Families or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding

• A! ordable childcare • LGBTQ rights • Trans* issues • Media and popular culture images of women (and men) • Working conditions, including recourse in the case of unequal

pay, pregnancy discrimination, and sexual harassment • Gender violence • Women in electoral politics

Notes 1 www.about-face.org/maxim-magazine-considers-feminism-a-disease-to-be-

cured/ 2 www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/pdf/GPO-CONAN-1992-8.pdf.

“Proposed Amendments Not Ratified by States”   (PDF).  United States Govern- ment Printing Office . Retrieved 3 August 2017.

3 bell hooks defines “patriarchal violence” in her book Feminism Is for Everybody this way: “Patriarchal violence in the home is based on the belief that it is acceptable for a more powerful individual to control others through various forms of coercive force. This expanded definition of domestic violence includes male violence against women, same-sex violence, and adult violence against children. The term ‘patriarchal violence’ is useful because unlike the more acceptable phrase ‘domestic violence’ it continually reminds the listener that violence in the home is connected to sexism and sexist thinking, to male domination. For too long the term domestic violence has been used as a ‘soft’ term which suggests it emerges in an intimate context that is

26 INTRODUCTION

private and somehow less threatening, less brutal, than the violence that takes place outside the home. This is not so, since more women are beaten and murdered in the home than on the outside. Also most people tend to see domestic violence between adults as separate and distinct from violence against children when it is not. Often children suffer abuse as they attempt to protect a mother who is being attacked by a male companion or husband, or they are emotionally damaged by witnessing violence and abuse.”

4 http://bechdeltest.com/ 5 www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLF6sAAMb4s 6 www.glaad.org/sri/2016/vitorusso

Works Cited Allen, Paula Gunn. ! e Sacred Hoop. Beacon Press, 1986. Baumgardner, Jennifer, and Amy Richards. Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the

Future . Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2000. Berger, Michele Tracy, and Cheryl Radelo! . Transforming Scholarship: Why Women’s and

Gender Studies Students Are Changing ! emselves and the World . Routledge, 2011. Boxer, Marilyn J. “Women’s Studies as Women’s History.” Women’s Studies Quarterly ,

vol. 30, 2002, pp. 42–51. Carmon, Erin. “" e Willis Test Is the New Bechdel Test.” Jezebel , 2 May 2011. http://

jezebel.com/5797747/the-willis-test-is-the-new-bechdel-test. Accessed 23 January 2017.

Cataldi, Sue. “Re$ ections on Male-Bashing.” NWSA Journal , vol. 7, no. 2, 1995, pp. 76–85.

Cobble, Dorothy Sue, Linda Gordon, and Astrid Henry. Feminism Un" nished: A Short, Surprising History of American Women’s Movements . W.W. Norton, 2014.

Coontz, Stephanie. “Why Gender Equality Stalled.” New York Times , 16 February 2013.

Crawley, Sara, et al. “Introduction: Feminist Pedagogies in Action: Teaching Beyond Disciplines.” Feminist Teacher , vol. 19, no. 1, 2008, pp. 1–12.

Dargis, Manohla. “Sundance Fights Tide with Films Like ‘" e Birth of a Nation.’ ” New York Times , 29 January 2016. www.nytimes.com/2016/01/30/movies/sundance- # ghts-tide-with-# lms-like-the-birth-of-a-nation.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

“Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions.” " e Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony Papers Project. Rutgers. http://ecssba.rutgers.edu/docs/seneca.html. Ac- cessed 5 July 2017.

“Fast Facts: Title IX.” National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Ed- ucation. 2014. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=93. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Freedman, Estelle. No Turning Back: ! e History of Feminism and the Future of Women. Ballantine Books, 2002.

Hogeland, Lisa. “Fear of Feminism: Why Young Women Get the Willies.” Ms. Maga- zine , 1 December 1994.

hooks, bell. Feminist ! eory from Margin to Center . South End, 1984. ——. Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics . South End Press, 2000. Howe, Florence. “Still Changing Academe after All " ese Years.” Women’s Studies Quar-

terly , vol. 30, 2002, pp. 27–31.

INTRODUCTION 27

Institute for Women’s Policy Research. “Fact Sheet: " e Gender Wage Gap, 2013: Di! er- ences by Race and Ethnicity No Growth in Real Wages for Women.” March 2014. https://iwpr.org/publications/the-gender-wage-gap-2013-di! erences-by-race- and-ethnicity-no-growth-in-real-wages-for-women/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Iron-Jawed Angels. Dir. Katja van Garnier. Perf. Hilary Swank, Margo Martindale, Anjelica Huston, Frances O’Connor, Vera Farmiga, and Lois Smith. HBO, 2004.

Jong, Erica. “Ally McBeal and Time Magazine Can’t Keep the Good Women Down.” New York Observer , 13 July 1998.

National Women’s Studies Association. www.nwsa.org/. Accessed 5 July 2017. Penaluna, Regan. “Wanted: Female Philosophers, in the Classroom and in the Canon.”

! e Chronicle of Higher Education , 11 October 2009. www.chronicle.com/article/ Wanted-Female-Philosophers/48729/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Pharr, Suzanne. “Homophobia as a Weapon of Sexism.” Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and Contemporary Readings. McGraw-Hill, 2007, pp. 71–74.

Sarkeesian, Anita. “" e Oscars and the Bechdel Test.” Feminist Frequency , 15 February 2012. https://feministfrequency.com/video/the-2012-oscars-and-the-bechdel-test/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Valenti, Jessica. Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters. Seal Press, 2007.

Walker, Rebecca. “Becoming the " ird Wave.” Ms. Magazine, vol. 2, no. 4, 1992, pp. 39–41. White House. “Women and Girls in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math

(STEM).” Department of Energy, 30 November 2011. https://energy.gov/sites/ prod/files/White%20House%20OSTP%20Women%20in%20STEM%20 Fact%20Sheet%202011.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Women’s March on Washington. “Guiding Vision and De# nition of Principles.” https://static1.squarespace.com/static/584086c7be6594762f5ec56e/t/587b8e5b15 d5db2c4ba884d1/1484492383110/WMW+Guiding+Vision+%26+De# nition+of+ Principles.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Zeilinger, Julie. A Little F’d Up: Why Feminism Is Not a Dirty Word . Seal Press, 2012.

Suggested Readings Basu, Amrita. Women’s Movements in the Global Era: ! e Power of Local Feminisms.

2nd ed. Westview Press, 2016. Cobble, Dorothy Sue, Linda Gordon, and Astrid Henry. Feminism Un" nished: A Short,

Surprising History of American Women’s Movements. W.W. Norton, 2014. Dicker, Rory. A Brief History of U.S. Feminisms. 2nd ed. Seal Press, 2016. “Domestic Violence Prevention: A History of Milestones and Achievements.” National

Online Resources Center on Violence Against Women. VAWNet.org. 2011. Ferree, Myra Marx, and Aili Mari Tripp, eds. Global Feminism: Transnational Women’s

Activism, Organizing, and Human Rights. New York University Press, 2006. Freedman, Estelle, ed. ! e Essential Feminist Reader. Modern Library, 2007. Gay, Roxane. Bad Feminist: Essays. Harper Perennial, 2014. Kennedy, Elizabeth Lapovsky, and Agatha Beins, eds. Women’s Studies for the Future.

Rutgers University Press, 2005. Orr, Catherine, Ann Braithwaite, and Diane Lichtenstein, eds. Rethinking Women’s and

Gender Studies. Routledge, 2011.

28 INTRODUCTION

Seager, Joni. ! e Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. 4th ed. Penguin, 2009. “" e Women’s Rights Movement, 1848–1920.” History, Art, and Archives. ! e United

States House of Representatives. https://memory.loc.gov/ammem/naw/nawstime.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Wiegman, Robyn, ed. Women’s Studies on Its Own: A Next Wave Reader on Institutional Change. Duke University Press, 2002.

Yousafzai, Malala. With Christina Lamb. I Am Malala: ! e Girl Who Stood Up for Education and Was Shot by the Taliban. Back Bay Books, 2015.

29

2 The Social Construction

of Gender

Figure 2.1 ! e Genderbread Person Source: First published in ! e Social Justice Advocate’s Handbook: A Guide to Gender by Sam Killer- mann, http://samuelkillermann.com

Opening Illustration In 1972, at the heart of the second wave of feminist movement, Lois Gould published the " ctional tale “X: A Fabulous Child’s Story” in Ms. Magazine. ! e story’s narrator describes an imaginary parenting scenario in which a baby is born, named “x,” and under the guidance

30 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

of scientists is deliberately raised in a gender-neutral way. ! e child is not subject to feminizing or masculinizing in# uences through toy selec- tion and clothing coded as feminine or masculine, and is co-parented equally by di$ erent-sex parents. ! e story calls attention to the many gendered messages we experience on a daily basis:

bouncing it up in the air and saying how strong and active it was, they’d be treating it more like a boy than an X. But if all they did was cuddle it and kiss it and tell it how sweet and dainty it was, they’d be treating it more like a girl than an X. On page 1654 of the O% cial Instruction Manual, the scientists prescribed: “plenty of bouncing and plenty of cuddling, both, X ought to be strong and sweet and active. Forget about dainty altogether.

(Gould)

Gould’s ultimate moral was that parenting that drew from a range of human virtues would produce well-adjusted, functional children who were free to express themselves and pursue their interests regardless of whether those expressions and pursuits were coded as masculine or feminine.

A contemporary version of this " ctional tale made news headlines in recent years, with news journalists documenting the stories of two contemporary couples whose decision not to reveal their baby’s sex (up until the child reached school age) earned them a great deal of public scorn and attention (Bielanko). As one of the parents, Beck Laxton, said in an interview with the Cambridge News , “I wanted to avoid all that stereotyping. Stereotypes seem fundamentally stupid. Why would you want to slot people into boxes?” (“Couple”). Laxton, a UK-based online editor, and her partner, Kieran Cooper, decided to keep Sasha’s sex a secret when he was still in the womb. ! e birth announcement stated the gender-neutral name of their child but skipped the big reveal. Up until recently, the couple only told a few close friends and family members that Sasha was a boy and managed to keep the rest of the world “in the dark.” Another couple announced the arrival of their baby with an email that read “We’ve decided not to share Storm’s sex for now—a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 31

stand up to what the world could become in Storm’s lifetime (a more progressive place? . . .).”

Gould’s story and the contemporary versions of the Fabulous X simul- taneously illustrate how gender is encoded and maintained through a variety of strong social cues (i.e., naming practices, parenting respon- sibilities, toys, clothing, games, interpersonal interactions, and media exposure) and the way that people struggle to carve out space and identities that resist normative constructions of gender. ! is chapter explores how a social constructionist approach to gender is a key feature of a feminist theoretical lens.

A feminist stance understands gender as a system of privilege and oppression; it also assumes that gender is socially constructed, and is deeply interested in mapping out how, where, and to what e$ ect.

Why a ! reshold Concept? A core premise of feminist scholarship is that gender and sex are distinct from each other, and that our gender identities are socially constructed and not immutable. Key to this concept is that ideas and constructions of gender change across time, between and within cultures, and even within one’s lifespan. ! e speci" c ways that gender is socially constructed at any given time also serve the purpose of establishing and perpetuating sexism, de" ned as prejudice and discrimination based on sex. Furthermore, racial, ethnic, and cultural identities frame expectations for appropriate gendered behavior, as does social class and sexuality. Simply put, feminist scholars focus on how gender is socially constructed, and to what ends, and they are simultaneously interested in how social constructions of gender are shaped by issues of race, class, age, ability, and sexual identity. ! is thresh- old concept, then, is deeply intertwined with both the concept of privilege and oppression, which is the focus of Chapter 3, and the concept of inter- sectionality, which is the focus of Chapter 4.

Framing De" nitions and Related Concepts Social Constructionism One of the early foundational theories underpinning a social con- structionist approach is C. Wright Mills’s articulation of the concept

32 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

of the sociological imagination . In his 1959 book of the same name, Mills argues that

the individual can understand his own experience and gauge his own fate only by locating himself within his period, that he can know his own chances in life only by becoming aware of those of all individuals in his circumstances.

(5)

Mills’s claims became the foundation of social science and sociology as a discipline. As Mills contended, “[t]he sociological imagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society” (6). As one of the foundations of feminist theory, social constructionism can be distinguished from other theories about sex and gender that are used to explain gender role socialization and how gendered systems are created and maintained. ! ere are several hallmark concepts that distinguish a social constructionist approach to gender.

Sex and Gender ! e “Genderbread Person” image that opens this chapter—and the accompanying controversies around it—is a case in point of the unset- tled social understanding of the relationship between biological sex and the various ways that gender is created, expressed, and de" ned. What the image attempts to do is complicate our understanding of a binary gender system—boys and girls, men and women—and present a more varied spectrum of elements that make up sex, gender, and sexuality.

Although most scholars acknowledge that gender and sex exist on a continuum, a simple de" nition pulls apart these two commonly con- # ated terms into “sex,” which focuses on the biological, genetic, and physiological features of people, and “gender,” which characterizes the behavioral (and changeable/evolving) characteristics that we de" ne as feminine and masculine. Physical features of sex include reproductive organs and secondary sex characteristics that develop at puberty, such as average di$ erence and variation in muscle-to-fat ratios between men and women, and growth in body and facial hair. Gender, in con- trast, is shaped by behavioral cues and social codes that are coded

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 33

as “masculine” or “feminine.” In the social constructionist understand- ing of gender, then, gender is performative, that is, something you “do” rather than something that is built into or programmed into you.

! e work of feminist sociologist Judith Lorber serves as a touchstone in this area. Her work helpfully provides a number of terms that # esh out the idea of gender as a social construction. She makes clear that gen- dering is a process that has many dimensions and that occurs over time: " rst, there is the assignment of sex and gender, which quickly becomes a gender status , according to Lorber, through naming, clothing, and the choice of children’s toys and room decor. From there, children continue to be socialized into their gender, developing a gender identity , which is a person’s gendered sense of self. ! e expression of that gendered sense of self is referred to as one’s gender comportment , which Susan Stryker de" nes as “bodily actions such as how we use our voices, cross our legs, hold our heads, wear our clothes, dance around the room, throw a ball, walk in high heels” (12). ! is category is referred to as gender expres- sion in the Genderbread " gure that opens the chapter. Lorber also uses the term gender display , de" ned as the presentation of self as a kind of gendered person through dress, cosmetics, adornments, and both per- manent and reversible body markers.

A social constructionist approach to gender rejects the belief that there are only two sexes and two genders, arguing instead that our current binary sex/gender system is itself a social construction. Pow- erful evidence for this argument comes from the intersex community (those who are themselves intersexed, parents of intersex children, and researchers who focus on intersexuality). ! e Intersex Society of North America de" nes intersex as “a general term used for a variety of condi- tions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to " t the typical de" nitions of female or male” (“What Is Intersex?”). While it has been di% cult to get a handle on how fre- quently intersex babies are born, Anne Fausto-Sterling estimates that intersex births account for 1.7 percent of all births. She helpfully puts this into perspective:

a city of 300,000 would have 5,100 people with varying degrees of intersexual development. Compare this with albinism, another

34 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

relatively uncommon human trait but one that most readers can probably recall having seen. Albino births occur much less fre- quently than intersexual births—in only about 1 in 20,000 babies.

(51–53)

Another frequently cited point of reference is redheadedness: being intersex is about as common as being born with red hair. For those who believe that sex and gender are binary—that there are only two possibil- ities, male and female—intersex babies are “really” male or female, and medical management, including genital surgery, can bring their physical appearance in line with their “true” sex. By contrast, Anne Fausto- Sterling and many others argue that the birth of intersex babies indicates that sex and gender are not binary, that is, that there are more than two categories, male and female, and she envisions a future (an admittedly utopic one) in which a wide range of gender identities and expressions would be permitted, even encouraged. Toward this end, Fausto-Sterling and the Intersex Society of North America call for an end to infant genital surgery on intersex babies, both because they feel strongly that decisions about making any permanent changes to the appearance and sexual function of intersex people should be made by the people them- selves, or at least in consultation with them, and because the genital surgeries reinforce the idea that there are really only two sexes. Cheryl Chase, founder of the Intersex Society of North America and herself born intersex, argues that “children should be made to feel loved and accepted in their unusual bodies” (Weil).

Recent legal victories would seem to suggest some small steps toward Fausto-Sterling’s vision: India, Pakistan and New Zealand now recog- nize a third gender, and in 2013, Germany enacted a law that allows parents to refrain from marking “M” or “F” on their intersex baby’s birth certi" cate. ! e law was intended to allow parents to defer the decision and allow the child to decide later on whether to identify as male or female; however, the law also stipulates that a child could continue to identify as intersex. In a move that echoes the Gould story that opens this chapter, Germans can choose to use an “X” in the gender " eld of their passport. And in 2016 in the United States, Kelly Keenan, at the age of 55, successfully had her birth certi" cate amended to read

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 35

“intersex” rather than M or F, after " nding out what had been kept a secret from her throughout her life. Keenan’s is thought to be the " rst birth certi" cate to read “intersex” (Levin). (Note: Keenan was raised female, and continues to use feminine pronouns.)

While most people experience congruence between their gender assignment , gender identity, and gender expression, this is not auto- matically the case, and a growing number of people are exploring other identities and ways of being, and demanding legal recognition for their right to do so. ! e term transgender has many complex meanings and nuances, but a starting point is that it is used to describe an individual for whom there is a lack of congruence between their gender assignment and gender identity. In Transgender History, Susan Stryker uses the term “to refer to people who move away from the gender they were assigned at birth, people who cross over ( trans- ) the boundaries constructed by their culture to de" ne and contain that gender” (1). While it used to be more common for that movement to remain within the boundaries of the binary gender system, that is, by seeking sex reassignment surgery and transitioning from identifying as a man to identifying as a woman (or vice versa), many trans* people today are increasingly identifying themselves and staking out territory outside the binary altogether. As Stryker points out, some people “seek to resist their birth-assigned gen- der without abandoning it,” whereas others “seek to create some kind of new gender location” (19). Trans* people may or may not modify their bodies using surgery and/or hormones and may or may not seek legal recognition for their gender identity if it does not match the sex and gender they were assigned at birth.

Conversely, the terms cisgender and cissexual are used to describe people who experience congruence between their gender assignment and gender identity. Stryker points out that the creation of this term helps to name and mark that experience rather than assuming it as the norm. She writes, “[t]he idea behind the terms is to resist the way that ‘woman’ or ‘man’ can mean ‘nontransgendered woman’ or ‘nontransgendered man’ by default, unless the person’s transgender status is explicitly named” (22).

Social media have also responded to the expanding understanding of gender identity that has emanated from a variety of sources, including the intersex and the trans* communities. For example, Facebook in 2014

36 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

changed the gender " eld of its pro" le options to allow for a wider range of user selections, moving from the binary “male/female” options to roughly 50 options including “cisgender,” “trans male,” “androgynous,” and “genderqueer,” among others (Henn). Although the opportunity to choose one’s online gender identity, along with the legal recognition of a third gender in several countries, indicates that change is afoot and many people are actively working to create more cultural space for life beyond the binary, this is not to downplay or diminish the realities of transpho- bia , which Julia Serano de" nes as “an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against people whose gendered identities, appearances, or behaviors deviate from societal norms.” Even as many, especially younger people, are actively embracing gender # uidity, there are powerful forces that are working actively to police the boundaries of sex and gender. A recent incident in the state of Colorado highlights the uneven nature of change; the Girl Scouts (GSUSA) found themselves under attack over the inclusion of Bobby Montoya, a grade-school-aged trans girl. In fact, Bobby’s desire to join the Girl Scouts was initially thwarted by a troop leader who cited Bobby’s “boy parts” as a barrier to joining, but that decision was quickly reversed based on national GSUSA policy. ! e FAQ section of the GSUSA website states that “if the child is recog- nized by the family and school/community as a girl and lives culturally as a girl, then Girl Scouts is an organization that can serve her in a set- ting that is both emotionally and physically safe.” When Bobby’s story hit the news, however, a group calling itself Honest Girl Scouts encour- aged a cookie-buying boycott, citing GSUSA’s “bias for transgenders [ sic ]” (Hetter). Many cities and states are also passing so-called “bath- room bills” which seek to prohibit trans men and women from using the bathroom that accords with their gender identity. Many of these bills constitute backlash to recent political gains for transgender rights, and proponents of them often disingenuously cite their desire to protect women and girls from being preyed upon by men in the restroom.

Gender Socialization Having made an initial pass through an explanation of the distinction between sex and gender, as well as what gender is or consists of, we can

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 37

now ask and answer the question of where and how we learn about gender in our culture. Where do we learn what it means to be a boy or girl in our culture, in terms of appearance and behavior, and what are the cues and messages that we receive, both implicitly and explicitly? ! at is, we can begin to think about where, but also how, we are social- ized into our gender. Some of the primary sites and arenas of gender socialization include the family, education, religion, popular culture and the media, sports, and the legal and criminal justice systems. What follows are a few examples of how these societal institutions serve as a site of gender socialization (note: institutions as sites and mechanisms for structuring systems of privilege and oppression will be discussed in Chapter 3 as well).

Education School settings are a key site of gender socialization. ! e messages children receive about appropriate behavior, attitudes, and appearance for their gender are both explicit and implicit, and come from school policies, teachers, fellow students, as well as the curriculum. Dress codes in middle schools and high schools are a good example of the role of school policy in shaping ideas around gender. An increasing number of schools have instituted dress codes that reinforce a double standard and convey the message to girls and young women that their bodies, by de" nition, are a distraction to boys and young men, and that it is their responsibility to cover themselves. Some of these dress codes can also have the e$ ect of regulating the dress and appearance of trans* students. Many of these dress codes are ostensibly gender- neutral, but the language in them often reveals that women’s bodies are the prime focus of the policy. In Appleton, WI, for example, the policy states that “[s]tudents may not wear scanty and/or reveal- ing clothing,” but then goes on to provide examples that are almost exclusively feminine: “short skirts (need to be mid-thigh) or reveal- ing shorts, tube tops, halters, backless tops, spaghetti straps less than one inch, exposed midri$ s or undergarments.” Around the country, many students are resisting these dress codes and calling out the sexist assumptions that are implicit in them, as when a student in Appleton

38 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

posted # yers urging administrators to “teach male students and teach- ers not to over-sexualize female body parts” (Zettel).

! e role of peers in educational settings can be seen powerfully in discussions of boys’ underachievement. A recent article by sociologist Michael Kimmel, “Solving the ‘Boy Crisis’ in Schools,” drawing from qualitative evidence collected from surveys and interviews with mid- dle school students, links expectations about gender norms for boys to attitudes about school, and more speci" cally, toward particular school subjects. Kimmel argues that “[h]ow little they care about school, about studying, about succeeding—these are markers of manhood in peer groups of middle and high school boys across the country.” He further argues that “what boys think it means to be a man is often at odds with succeeding in school. Stated most simply, many boys regard academic disengagement as a sign of their masculinity.” Kimmel concludes with a call to change the messages that boys receive in school settings, saying that “[w]e must make academic engagement a sign of manhood— which we can only do by interrupting those other voices that tell our young boys to tune out.” On a related note, the values of compliance and obedience are a key feature in many school settings, a fact that has gen- dered (and racialized) implications. As Sadker and Zittleman explain, boys are more likely to be overdiagnosed with behavioral and emotional problems such as Attention De" cit Disorder, whereas girls’ higher over- all average grades and lower test scores may re# ect what they note is an educational setting that values “following the rules, being quiet, and conforming to school norms” (78). In this way, particular behaviors are rewarded even if they are not ultimately those that will lead to “success” beyond school and in other settings that prize assertiveness and risk- taking behaviors.

School curricula also contain gendered messages that a$ ect children’s perceptions of intelligence, as illustrated by a recent study published in the journal Science. ! e study documented the shift that takes place as early as age 5 regarding children’s perceptions of “brilliance” or intel- ligence. At 5, both boys and girls associated brilliance with their own gender; by 6 or 7, however, both boys and girls were signi" cantly less likely to pick women as brilliant. ! at assessment was distinct from girls’ beliefs about who does well in school, where girls were more likely

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 39

to identify girls, suggesting that at least for girls, their beliefs about academic success were disconnected from their perceptions of who is “really, really smart,” as the study framed the question to child par- ticipants. As the study concluded, by age 6, then, girls in the study were avoiding activities that were framed by the researchers as being for kids who were “really, really smart,” and the authors assert that “[t]hese " ndings suggest that gendered notions of brilliance are acquired early and have an immediate e$ ect on children’s interests” (Bian, Leslie, and Cimpian).

Family Structures and the Workplace Social and policy structures that assume female caretaking and the pri- macy of men’s careers send strong reinforcing messages and logistical cues about the responsibility for childcare as women’s work. For example, paid family and medical leave for the birth or adoption of a child (or to care for sick or elderly family members) does not exist on a standard national level in the United States (although it is common in other industrialized countries), and the status of the U.S. leave program as unpaid reinforces the notion that pregnant people can rely on the income of a (usually) male partner to support them during childbirth and throughout infancy. When these are heavily gendered responsibilities, messages about who belongs in the public sphere and who belongs in the private sphere are clear. Children also learn what is considered “women’s work” and what is considered “men’s work” by observing both the amount and kind of domestic and unpaid work performed by their parents and caregivers. Although the amount of housework performed by women has gone down over the last 30 years, and the amount of housework performed by men has gone up, a signi" cant gap remains between the average weekly hours spent by men and women engaged in these tasks, with women still spending roughly twice as much time as men. As the Bureau of Labor Statistics notes, women do 10.8 hours more unpaid household labor than men, and among 25- to 34-year olds, women perform 31.7 hours of household work compared with men’s 15.8 (“Hours”). And while recent studies show that men’s share of meal preparation and childcare has increased, the biggest gap is around cleaning.

Figure 2.2 Equal Education, Unequal Pay Source: LearnStu$ .com

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 41

! ese messages are not just conveyed through observation of adults, however; children are also socialized into their gender through the chores they are (or aren’t) asked to perform around the house, and the money they may receive in the form of an allowance. ! e Allstate Foundation’s 2014 Teens and Personal Finance Survey revealed that more boys than girls reported receiving an allowance from their parents (67 percent v. 59 percent). A 2007 study by the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research found that “girls spend more time doing housework than they do playing, while boys spend about 30 percent less time doing household chores than girls and more than twice as much time playing.” And " nally, several studies have shown that in families where both boys and girls get allowances, boys’ allowances are higher (Dusenbery). Taken together, these " ndings suggest that chores and allowances are key sites of boys’ and girls’ gender socialization.

Religions Most major religions are based on a heavy foundation of masculine god language , and masculine iconography as omniscient and omnipotent; major religions are centered on male prophets and gods and around strict rules for men’s and women’s conduct, particularly regarding sexu- ality, reproduction, and marriage. Masculine god language that refers to deities as “Him” and “Our Heavenly Father” reinforce an image of an all-powerful male ruler. Religious texts as well often communicate oppressive notions about gender relationships, such as Biblical passages regularly referenced in Christianity including:

Women should keep silence in churches. For they are not permit- ted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

(1 Cor. 14:34) I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

(1 Cor. 11:3) Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is " t in the Lord.

(Col. 3:18)

42 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I su$ er not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

(1 Tim. 2:11–15)

Further, in a number of faiths, women are excluded from religious practices. For example, Hindu women perform rituals of self-denial, such as fasting, in order to create positive energy and power for their husbands. ! e self-sacri" ce of a woman for her husband is understood to be a reli- gious o$ ering. Men do not perform such rituals for their wives (Burn). Women are often also excluded from leadership positions. Female min- isters, bishops, priests, rabbis, mullahs, gurus, or sadhus remain relatively rare or nonexistent in many religious traditions. Children who attend worship services learn by observing the roles played by both children and adult men and women in those places of worship, and they also absorb explicit and implicit messages about their “proper” roles.

It should also be noted, however, that many women, both feminist religious scholars and everyday activists, continue to work to challenge power imbalances, including segregated and exclusionary practices, and thereby send a di$ erent set of messages to their religion’s practitioners, including children. For example, Kristine Stolakis’s documentary, Where We Stand , traces the work of stay-at-home-mom Abby Hansen’s advo- cacy for women’s ordination in the Mormon church, also known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Parker). Ordination of women as Catholic priests is also among the many issues tackled by the Women’s Ordination Conference, an organization described on its website as “A Voice for Women’s Equality in the Catholic Church.” And " nally, Muslim women have opened a number of women’s mosques in various parts of the world; the " rst in the U.S. opened in Los Angeles in 2015. ! ese mosques feature women imams (prayer leaders) and are seen as a part of women’s empowerment e$ orts within Islam.

Popular Culture From birth, children are exposed to gendered messages in the form of pink or blue blankets and baby name signs, in the gendered division of

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 43

toy store aisles, and in TV shows geared toward girls or boys, as well as the dominance of male characters in children’s media. Regarding chil- dren’s media, research from the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media found that girl characters are outnumbered by boy characters by a ratio of 3 to 1 (Smith). Another example comes from looking at recipients of Best Picture Oscar awards. For example, " lms that have been praised and rewarded in the " lm industry are almost universally male-centered. A brief review of the " lms receiving the Best Picture award over the last two decades demonstrates that male-centered nar- ratives are most typically perceived as worthy of adulation.

For example, the majority of the " lms center on a heroic male protag- onist who overcomes a signi" cant obstacle (such as ! e Departed ’s focus on the main character’s navigation of his life as a double agent; A Beau- tiful Mind , documenting the main character as a genius su$ ering from a mental illness; or Oscar Schindler’s acts of heroism during the Holo- caust in Schindler’s List ). Films such as ! e Silence of the Lambs , while including a central female character, largely are driven by her interaction with or attempts to understand a more signi" cant male character (in that " lm, Hannibal Lecter). Other " lmic conventions rewarded include vengeance stories, such as a male character seeking out revenge for a wrong done to a woman ( Unforgiven ); or the emotional life of a male character presumed to be of depth and thus interest to a viewer, such as ! e English Patient or American Beauty . Films centered on war or battle are also overrepresented (such as Braveheart , Platoon , Gladia- tor , Lord of the Rings , ! e Hurt Locker , and Schindler’s List ) relative to their overall proportion of " lm plots. ! is emphasis on male-centered narratives and male-identi" ed events and activities (war, battle, math, detective work, the Old West) communicate strong messages about what is culturally valuable and what (and who) is interesting. On a simi- lar note, a recent analysis of the roles played by the winners of the Best Actress Oscar showed that almost a third of the winners played roles that were de" ned primarily through relationship to a man or men; that is, as wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, or girlfriends. Tellingly, there was no parallel “relational” category for the Best Actor winners. While the number of relational roles among the Best Actress nominations has slowed in recent years, Brie Larson won the Best Actress Oscar in 2016

44 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

for her role in Room , about a mother and son who survived long-term kidnapping. In addition, in the last decade more " lms featuring cen- tral girl or women characters have been among Best Picture nominees, including Million Dollar Baby (2004), Little Miss Sunshine (2006), Juno (2007), Precious (2009), Black Swan (2010), ! e Help (2011), Zero Dark ! irty (2012), and Beasts of the Southern Wild (2013). Recent progress is uneven: in 2013, four of nine nominated " lms featured a woman as protagonist, but in 2015, none of the eight " lms nominated featured a woman as protagonist. And in terms of box-o% ce success, as of May 2014, two of the top three movie releases of 2013 featured female pro- tagonists: ! e Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Frozen , evidence which counters the notion that male viewers are not interested in paying to see " lms that feature female protagonists and female-centered storylines. In early 2017, the " lm Hidden Figures , about three African American women mathematicians whose work was instrumental to the U.S. e$ ort during the Cold War space race, was doing extremely well at the box o% ce and had netted a Best Picture Oscar nomination. Recall the Case

Table 2.1 List of Best Picture Award Winners 2016 – Moonlight 2015 – Spotlight 1999 – American Beauty 2014 – Birdman or (! e Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) 1998 – Shakespeare in Love 2013 – Twelve Years a Slave 1997 – Titanic 2012 – Argo 1996 – ! e English Patient 2011 – ! e Artist 1995 – Braveheart 2010 – ! e King’s Speech 1994 – Forrest Gump 2009 – ! e Hurt Locker 1993 – Schindler’s List 2008 – Slumdog Millionaire 1992 – Unforgiven 2007 – No Country for Old Men 1991 – ! e Silence of the Lambs 2006 – ! e Departed 1990 – Dances With Wolves 2005 – Crash 1989 – Driving Miss Daisy 2004 – Million Dollar Baby 1988 – Rain Man 2003 – ! e Lord of the Rings: ! e Return of the King 1987 – ! e Last Emperor 2002 – Chicago 1986 – Platoon 2001 – A Beautiful Mind 2000 – Gladiator

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 45

Study in Chapter 1 on using media tests as a way of critically examining gender, sexuality, and race in " lm.

Athletics Sports is a primary site of gender socialization, especially for adoles- cents. Cheerleading in its earliest incarnations was a male activity, developed in 1898 as “pep clubs” (International). Charged with gener- ating crowd enthusiasm, cheer clubs were male-only until 1923, but by the 1940s women became the majority of cheerleaders in the United States. Today, 96 percent of cheerleaders are female (Bettis and Adams). Cheerleading is suggestive of male-centeredness; as a “corollary” or “add-on” to, initially, exclusively male athletic events, primarily football and basketball, cheerleading has evolved to function as a method of (1) drawing attention to the athletic activities and achievements of a group of culture-dominant men, and (2) demanding particular highly compliant, traditionally feminine, and surface-focused standards from its female participants. By the 1970s, the emergence of profes- sional cheerleading squads popularized the erotic image of the female cheerleader and her support of the athletic prowess of her team. As Bettis and Adams observe, “erotic tensions . . . creep into the language, practices, and policies of cheerleading squads at all levels, from preado- lescent All-Star squads to collegiate competitive squads” (123). With current cheerleading choreography including what Bettis and Adams call “sexually suggestive” and “sexually provocative” moves, cheerlead- ing becomes outward-looking in its emphasis on drawing attention to male athletics and in the e$ orts of female participants to garner social status through male attention to the often erotic performance of cheerleading routines. Competitive cheer has evolved as an o$ shoot of traditional cheerleading; its growing popularity can be seen in movies like Bring it On (2000) and the television show Glee , which features an award-winning squad called the Cheerios. Many people consider com- petitive cheer to be a sport, and organizing bodies within the " eld have petitioned the NCAA to o% cially recognize it as such on the collegiate level. Some cynically see the push to have competitive cheer recognized

46 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

as a collegiate sport as a way for universities to comply technically with Title IX regulations while not supporting more traditional sports for women athletes. Proponents of recognizing cheerleading as a sport argue that competitive cheer is highly athletic, and that those partici- pating in it run the risk of incurring severe sports-related injuries. But while competitive cheer draws its own audience (as opposed to being on the sidelines of another sporting event), it arguably maintains the requirement of traditionally feminine appearance and sexually sugges- tive choreography.

Figure 2.3 Relational Roles and Best Actress Oscars Source: Infographic by Jan Diehm for the Hu" ngton Post, www.hu% ngtonpost.com/2014/01/16/ best-actress-winners_n_4596033.html

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 47

Electoral Politics As of January 2017, according to United Nations data, there were ten women serving as Head of State and nine serving as Head of Govern- ment. Fifteen percent of the world’s lawmakers were female in 2003; by 2016, that number had risen to 23 percent (UN Women). In the United States, women are extremely underrepresented in elected o% ce relative to their numbers in the general population. As of 2017, according to the Center for American Women and Politics, women represent 19.4 per- cent of Congress and 24.8 percent of state legislators; only 10 percent of governors are women. And while the U.S. came close to electing its " rst woman as president (Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election), Clinton was ultimately defeated. ! e causes of Clinton’s defeat are numerous and complex, but sexism was clearly among them.

When compared to women’s representation in elected o% ce in other countries, it appears that the United States is losing rather than gaining ground. For example, in 1997, the United States ranked 52nd in the world for women’s representation in government; as of 2016, that rank- ing had fallen to 97th. ! e short answer for why we are losing ground, according to Sarah Kli$ and Soo Oh, is that, unlike in other coun- tries around the world (Sweden, Rwanda, Bolivia, Canada, Mexico, and France, just to name a few) neither the U.S. government nor the coun- try’s major political parties have made increasing women’s participation a priority through instituting quotas.

! e patterns and expectations are set at an early age, with many high schools and universities electing fewer young women to student govern- ment positions. For example, in 2013 at Phillips Academy, an elite prep

Figure 2.4 Gender and Race Breakdown of U.S. Legislators Source: Hill, Catherine. “Barriers and Bias: ! e Status of Women in Leadership.” American Association of University Women . 2016. www.aauw.org/research/barriers-and-bias/, accessed 5 July 2017

48 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

school in Andover, Massachusetts, students spoke out about the lack of female student leadership since the school opened its ranks to female students in 1973. According to a New York Times article written about the campus controversy, only four young women have been elected to the position of school president in the past 40 years. In an e$ ort to increase female representation in student government, the school’s adminis- tration adopted a co-president model in the hope that mixed-gender groups would run for o% ce. Although the intended e$ ect was not pro- duced in 2013 (when two young men were elected), each pair of " nalists in the 2014 election consisted of one young man and one young woman, ensuring the election of a woman to the co-presidency (Seelye). At the postsecondary level, the American Student Government Association

The gap is even worse in the U.S. Congress ...

U. S. CONGRESS IN 2016

19%

Men All women Women of color

Figure 2.5 U.S. Congressional Demographics Source: Hill, Catherine. “Barriers and Bias: ! e Status of Women in Leadership.” American Association of University Women . 2016. www.aauw.org/research/barriers-and-bias/, accessed 5 July 2017

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 49

estimates that 40 percent of student presidents are women, also not- ing, however, that that number does not distinguish between two-year and four-year campuses; the assumption is that the number of women presidents on four-year campuses is lower ( Johnson). A May 2013 report by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement adds nuance to the discussion of women’s underrep- resentation in political o% ce by pointing out that although women are “severely underrepresented at virtually all levels of elected o% ce,” girls and young women outpace their male peers “on many indicators of civic engagement, including volunteering, membership in community asso- ciations, and voting” (Kawashima-Ginsberg and ! omas 2). ! e report attempts to explain what leads to and creates the gender gap in leader- ship, and several of those factors clearly stem from the di$ ering gender socialization of boys and girls. More speci" cally, they point to a gap in both con" dence and expectations. ! ey cite survey data from the Higher Education Research Institute that shows that women in their " rst year of college “are far less likely to claim personal characteristics such as leadership and public speaking skills, competitiveness, social skills, and popularity, all of which are commonly named characteristics of a political leader” (4), and they note that the gap has not narrowed in the past 50 years. Finally, they cite a study from American University that found that 30 percent of young college women had been encour- aged to run for o% ce, compared to 40 percent of young college men. More speci" cally, women “were less likely to be encouraged by parents, grandparents, teachers, religious leaders, coaches, and even friends” (6). In sum, both the implicit and explicit gendered messages boys and girls receive about political leadership shape the paths they pursue in adoles- cence and adulthood.

! e Legal System Broadly speaking, the legal system, including courts of law, the police, and the prison system, are sites that convey powerful messages about gender. According to the Sentencing Project, over half of incarcer- ated women are mothers of children under the age of 18. And the number of incarcerated women has grown enormously over the past

50 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

30 years, more than 700 percent, from 26,378 in 1980 to 215,332 in 2014. While there continue to be far more men than women in prison, “the rate of growth for female imprisonment has outpaced men by more than 50 percent between 1980 and 2014.” Children, then, are increasingly learning about the criminal justice system from an early age as a result of having an incarcerated parent, an increasing number of whom are mothers. According to the Pew Research Center, there were 2.7 million children in the U.S. with an incarcerated parent as of 2010 (Reilly). However, in spite of the fact that the numbers of incar- cerated women have grown tremendously in recent decades, women (particularly white women) are treated more leniently than men (both white men and men of color) within the criminal justice system, by a number of measures. According to a study entitled “From Initial Appearance to Sentencing: Do Female Defendants Experience Dis- parate Treatment?,” which analyzed almost 4,000 felony cases from 2009, they are less likely to be detained while awaiting trial, their bond amounts are lower than men’s, and they are less likely to be sentenced to prison. Racialized gender stereotypes, then, clearly operate within the criminal justice system in ways that directly impact both men’s and women’s experiences.

Children and teens are also increasingly encountering the criminal justice system through what has been termed the school-to-prison pipe- line, which describes the ways that some K–12 students are being pushed out of schools and into the criminal justice system as a result of increased police presence in schools and the criminalization of minor infractions of school rules. ! is so-called pipeline disproportionately a$ ects stu- dents of color and disabled students, and also has a gendered dimension, according to a 2015 report from the African American Policy Forum entitled “Black Girls Matter: Pushed Out, Overpoliced, and Under- protected.” According to Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the authors of the report, the disparity in punishment between black girls and white girls is greater than the disparity between black and white boys. In an interview with NPR News’s Karen Grigsby Bates, Crenshaw hypothesizes that this disparity is a result of the fact that black girls are targeted for school discipline not only because of their race, but also because their behav- ior does not conform to normative expectations of white femininity. In

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 51

short, black girls are often misperceived as defying authority because their gender expression is not seen as properly feminine.

A social constructionist approach argues that our gender identity, that is, our personal understanding of our own gender, is shaped by the intersection of experience and institutions. We receive implicit and explicit messages through our interactions with each of these institu- tions that fundamentally shape our understandings of ourselves and our beliefs about the world.

A " nal point here is that as we learn about gender through these societal institutions, masculinity and femininity are de" ned in relation to one another. More speci" cally, masculinity is de" ned in opposition to femininity. As Raewyn Connell puts it, “‘[m]asculinity’ does not exist except in contrast with ‘femininity’” (252). In Full Frontal Feminism , Jes- sica Valenti puts a " ner point on it: “masculinity is de" ned as whatever isn’t womanly” (185). ! e oppositional and relational nature of socially constructed masculinity and femininity is evident in Table 2.2.

Gender Norms, Gender Policing Reinforced across institutions and ideologies, gender norms are com- municated in many settings that individuals experience throughout their lives. In the discipline of psychology, gender norms might be called

Table 2.2 Stereotypical Gender Qualities “Masculine” Qualities “Feminine” Qualities aggressive/assertive passive logical/analytical indirectly aggressive (“catty”) physically strong, athletic sensitive responsible other-oriented protective physically weak/er self-oriented compromising emotionally unexpressive emotionally expressive in control collaborative authoritative submissive invulnerable nurturing sexually aggressive chaste or pure

52 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

“gender roles,” while sociologist Lisa Wade uses the term “gender rules.” Whatever the term, those messages communicate our society’s norms or expectations for gender, in ways that we may only dimly be aware of. It is often only when we inadvertently break a gender rule that we become consciously aware that it exists.

Gender norms of both masculinity and femininity are maintained through many mechanisms, including what is referred to as “policing.” In this context, “gender policing” means monitoring behavior or gen- der display, and granting or withholding social approval based on those behaviors. Gender norms are internalized to greater or lesser degrees by everyone, and we all participate (again, to greater or lesser degrees) in policing our own and others’ gender expression. An example of this type of policing is the phenomenon of “ slut shaming ,” in which a woman’s sexual choices and behaviors (or presumed choices and behaviors) are critiqued by others; gender studies scholar Leora Tanenbaum’s book- length study, Slut! , traces how women who violate traditional sexual expectations for their gender are subject to direct and indirect social consequences ranging from virtual or real-life name-calling, harass- ment, and assault. When oppressed groups police other members of that group, this is referred to as horizontal hostility , a phenomenon that will be discussed more fully in Chapter 3.

Gender Ranking ! e concept of gender ranking helps us understand the purpose and function of gender rules or norms. Masculinity and femininity are not valued equally in our culture; instead, greater value is typically attached to masculine qualities than feminine qualities. In ! e Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy , Johnson argues that androcentrism , or centering on and valuing of those qualities associated with mascu- linity, is a part of our cultural norms. ! is male-centeredness becomes visible through a close look at how status and power are distributed in our society. With positions of power that are male-dominated, and higher value attached to masculine personality traits like

control, strength, competitiveness, toughness, coolness under pressure, logic, forcefulness, decisiveness, rationality, autonomy,

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 53

self-su% ciency, and control over any emotion that interferes with other core values (such as invulnerability) . . . these male identi" ed qualities are associated with the work valued most in patriarchal societies—business, politics, war, athletics, law, and medicine.

(7)

! is gender ranking is often framed as both biological in origin and immutable, with masculine qualities de" ned in opposition to—and more culturally valued than—feminine qualities.

Within a society that engages in gender ranking, it is important to police people’s gender expression in order to ensure the “proper” distribution of rewards and punishments. Within a sex/gender sys- tem that privileges masculinity, a certain latitude is given to girls and women to emulate masculinity. In other words, we have space in our culture for girls to be “tomboys,” because there is a certain logic in many people’s minds to why a girl would want to adopt masculine styles of dress, behavior, and play. But because femininity is devalued, boys who are termed “sissies” frequently endure merciless teasing. In adulthood, masculine styles of dress, within certain parameters, are open to women; think, for example, of the popularity of “boyfriend” jeans, chinos, sweaters, and button-down shirts. ! e same cannot be said of men’s clothing; there is no parallel “girlfriend” styling of men’s clothing. ! is point will be explored visually in the “Bodies” portion of the Anchoring Topics section.

But aside from clothing, the emulation of masculinity by adult women can be fraught. ! ere is a double standard of behavior for men and women in the workplace and in politics, for example, where the same behavior is judged very di$ erently depending on whether the person engaging in the behavior is a man or woman. Sheryl Sand- berg’s Lean In organization is attempting to raise awareness of one manifestation of this double standard with its “Ban Bossy” campaign. As the campaign’s website puts it, “When a little boy asserts himself, he’s called a ‘leader.’ When a little girl does the same, she risks being branded ‘bossy.’”

Closely related to this concept of a gendered double standard of behav- ior is the idea of the double bind , whereby women in the public sphere

54 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

are faced with two less-than-desirable options of adhering to or reject- ing feminine gender norms, risking negative repercussions either way. Amanda Fortini captured this double bind in an article she wrote about the 2008 U.S. presidential race, in which Hillary Clinton sought the Democratic presidential nomination and Sarah Palin was the Repub- lican vice presidential candidate. Clinton’s style was deemed more masculine, whereas Palin’s was more traditionally feminine, but both received negative media attention. Fortini’s title: “! e ‘Bitch’ and the ‘Ditz’ (How the Year of the Woman Reinforced the Two Most Perni- cious Sexist Stereotypes and Actually Set Women Back)”. ! is gendered double standard also has everything to do with race and class; tradi- tional femininity is often implicitly coded as both white and middle- class. African American women in positions of power in the workplace and in politics, for example, have to negotiate a gendered double stan- dard that is also interwoven with racial stereotypes, such as the Angry Black Woman trope.

Associations between traditionally gendered behavior—and unequal penalties for men and women who do not adhere to expectations—is illustrated in a series of public columns by Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant, who examine how biases and assumptions about the superiority of masculine qualities—but the simultaneous social consequences for women who behave in traditionally ‘masculine’ ways—operates in the workplace. For example, Grant and Sandberg report on a study that

asked managers to read a transcript from a job interview of a candidate described as either female or male. At the end of the interview, the candidate asked for higher compensation and a nonstandard bonus.  .  .  . they were 28 percent less interested in hiring the female candidate. ! ey also judged her as 27 percent less likable. ! e same information did not alter their judgments of male candidates.

(Grant and Sandberg, 2014)

Only being told that stereotypes exist had a negative impact on participants’ abilities to moderate their stereotypes, but if they were told not only that stereotypes were present but also that most people

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 55

work to be aware of and act in ways that counter them, people in the study were much less likely to have discriminatory reactions. As Grant and Sandberg report, “[w]ith this adjustment, discrimina- tion vanished in their studies. After reading this message, managers were 28 percent more interested in working with the female candi- date who negotiated assertively and judged her as 25 percent more likable.” What this demonstrates is the complicated relationship between gendered behaviors and qualities and the lived experience of gender—and the complex challenges of navigating institutions that have been built upon and around traditional ideas about gender rules and gender roles.

Reimagining Masculinity Gender ranking serves the purpose of maintaining and perpetuating sexism , that is to say, a system of male dominance. However, there is a growing realization that boys and men often experience deep and last- ing harm as a result of adhering to, striving to adhere to, or failing to adhere to the very masculine gender norms that form the foundation of sexism. Paul Kivel’s articulation of the contents of the act-like-a- man box , as well as its purpose and function, has been key in this area. He calls it a box to emphasize the rigidity, narrowness, and con" ning aspects of the social construction of masculinity. He writes,

[I]t feels like a box, a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week box that society tells boys they must " t themselves into. One reason we know it’s a box is because every time a boy tries to step out he’s pushed back in with names like wimp, sissy, mama’s boy, girl, fag, nerd, punk, mark, bitch, and others even more graphic. Behind those names is the threat of violence.

(148)

Kivel points out that this policing of boys can come from other boys, but also from girls, who “don’t seem to like us when we step out of the box” (148). ! is policing can also come from adults, who “seem con- vinced that if they ‘coddle’ us, we will be weak and vulnerable” (148). A graphic illustration of the policing of the “act-like-a-man-box” can

56 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

be found in the story of a young boy in Raleigh, North Carolina, who attempted suicide in February 2014 after a long period of being bullied because he was a fan of the television show My Little Pony .

A growing body of psychological and medical research has linked boys’ and men’s adherence to traditional masculine gender norms with a number of connected negative outcomes: loss of intimate friendship, high rates of depression, and lower life expectancy. Regarding friend- ship, according to sociologist Lisa Wade, the qualities needed to extend and receive friendship are coded feminine in our culture, thus causing a gender role con# ict for men. She writes,

To be close friends, men need to be willing to confess their inse- curities, be kind to others, have empathy and sometimes sacri" ce their own self-interest. “Real men,” though, are not supposed to do these things. ! ey are supposed to be self-interested, competi- tive, non-emotional, strong (with no insecurities at all), and able to deal with their emotional problems without help. Being a good friend, then, as well as needing a good friend, is the equivalent of being girly.

She cites research by psychologist Niobe Way that found that younger boys report having close, intimate friendships with other boys, but that there is a shift around the age of 15 or 16, when boys “start reporting that they don’t have friends and don’t need them.” Later in adulthood, however, many adult men report wanting inti- mate friendships but are not sure how to forge them. ! is example not only illustrates the limitations of adhering to traditional norms of masculinity, but it also reveals the need to consider how the social construction of masculinity changes across an individual’s life span. Put di$ erently, these examples show the importance of thinking about gender in relation to age.

Beyond identifying the limitations and harm of traditional mascu- linity, a growing number of men are making strides in their personal, professional, and activist lives toward reimagining masculinity. Guante, a hip hop artist, poet, and social justice educator, has a spoken word piece, “Ten Responses to the Phrase ‘Man Up,’” that resonates deeply

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 57

with audiences. Another poet, Carlos Andres Gomez, published a book entitled Man Up: Reimagining Modern Manhood in 2012. Both men o$ er analysis of masculinity as a forced performance, make public declarations that they reject traditional masculinity, and instead claim for themselves a reimagined manhood that, as Guante puts it, entails having meaningful, emotional relationships with other men, admitting weakness, and being “strong in a way that isn’t about physical power or dominance.” Indeed, a huge emphasis of the work of men like Guante and Gomez, and groups like A Call to Men, is reimagining masculinity toward the end of preventing violence, whether that’s men’s violence against women, against themselves, or against other men. Men’s work to reimagine masculinity bene" ts girls and women, then, in the sense that it is focused on reducing violence against women, but it also ben- e" ts boys and men per se, in the sense that it can result in raising their quality of life, even as it may entail giving up some of the unearned privileges of masculinity.

! e examples described in this section give a sense of how com- plex the gender landscape is in the 21st century. Many people, young and old, chafe against the restrictions of the gender binary that dic- tate that masculinity and femininity are relational and oppositional, and that masculinity is more highly valued. Simultaneously, however, other individuals, along with structural forces, work hard, in ways both visible and invisible, to shore up traditional norms and gendered expectations.

Learning Roadblock “ It’s how you were raised .” It can be tempting to analyze gender through a lens that imagines family structures are the sole and most important in# uence on a person’s gender identity. Typically, these binary character- izations of gender are psychoanalytic in origin. Psychoanalytic theories typically explain gender di$ erentiation through relationships to others. Such theories originated from two di$ erent sources: Freudian views and those of other psychologists about how humans develop their sense of gender identity from deep roots in their childhood experience of family origin (experiences that are gendered); and theories that build on

58 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

those psychological evolutions by positing essentialized views of mas- culine and feminine ways of developing psychologically, morally, and emotionally. Freudian theories undergird the psychological approach because of Freud’s role in laying the groundwork for the study of the human psyche. Freud’s theory of the Oedipus complex is sometimes used to explain the di$ erence between male and female development of identity; in sum, Freud theorized that male children must individuate from their primary (female) caretaker and identify with the male parent in order to fully develop into an adolescent and adult. Freud’s theory supposed a deep and unconscious basis in an unrealized sexual desire for the mother, one that is displaced by identi" cation with the father. In contrast, female children do not need to individuate and become independent in their identity formation because their primary caretaker is the same-sex parent. ! us, boys and men, in this view, develop an identity characterized by separation, independence, and individuality whereas girls maintain an emphasis on identi" cation, interdependence, and cooperation/mutuality.

Other theories, such as that of feminist Carol Gilligan (in response to Lawrence Kohlberg), challenge assumptions about moral develop- ment that emphasize independent decision-making based on a moral truth and disconnected from the needs of others as the pinnacle. By this logic, women (in general) were perpetually “immature” in their moral development because they were more likely to be driven by moral decision-making that accounted for the needs and feelings of others—the emotional or a$ ective dimension—than by disconnected or objective applications of a moral principle. Psychoanalytic theories typically use essentialist assumptions about the moral or psychological orientation of men and women; as such, psychoanalytic explanations of occupational segregation focus on women’s attraction to and suitability for relational care work and work guided by a sense of moral obligation to others. Conversely, more independence, or what Gilligan calls an “ethic of justice,” is ascribed to men, which purportedly explains their attraction to " elds that provide work that is objective, mechanical, or conducted independently.

However, as this chapter illustrates, families themselves are subject to and part of structural and cultural contexts that grant privileges to

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 59

certain types of family structures and withhold them from others; par- ents themselves absorb and reproduce cultural values about gender. Family structures are part of larger institutional contexts that repro- duce values around class, race, gender, sexuality, and other categories of identity—values that do not begin and end around the boundaries of families of origin. In short, it’s not inaccurate to say that “how you were raised” shapes one’s ideas about gender, but what is inaccurate is the assertion that the only necessary changes that need to be made to the structure of gender can be brought about through child-rearing practices.

Learning Roadblock “ Women and men are naturally ______ .” Historically and in our contem- porary “commonplace” understandings of gender, biology holds a great deal of explanatory power, because physical di$ erences between men and women are typically the " rst “cues” we experience about gender identity. Biological determinist explanations for gender role develop- ment are rooted in assumptions about men’s greater average muscle mass and physical strength, in theories about genetics and hormonal di$ erences between men and women, and in claims about reproduc- tive strategies and the in# uence of women’s reproductive life cycles, for example, on the development of their emotional and psychological priorities. A biological determinist looks at the occupational segrega- tion of labor and locates the explanation for this division in genetic, biological, and evolutionary di$ erences. ! e determinist might assert that because women are biologically responsible for reproduction, ges- tation, and lactation, as well as, because of these physiological realities, caring for children, that women are attracted to " elds that make use of these “natural” dispositions. Lower-compensated and lower-status work such as early childhood education, childcare, social work, secre- tarial work, and nursing are naturally suited to women’s biological and evolutionary impulse toward caring for others, they would argue. On the # ip side, the physically demanding occupations such as logging and construction, for example, are occupied by men, whose larger bod- ies and greater muscle strength make them physically suited for this work. Further, historical associations between men and logic as well

60 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

as spatial skills (borne out by some neurological research) are used to justify the concentration of male workers in " elds like law, architec- ture, and engineering.

Although the idea that gender and sex are biologically and geneti- cally determined can have great explanatory power, scienti" c research as well as careful re# ection reveal that many of the gendered behaviors we take for granted are actually highly socially constructed by the over- lapping institutions we experience on a daily basis: the family, media, medical communities, religion, educational institutions, and so forth. ! e scienti" c and historical evidence of the malleability of gender—the wide range of sexualities across cultures; the range of expectations for masculine and feminine behavior across culture, time, and even an indi- vidual’s life span; and the signi" cant cultural energy spent on ensuring that boys and girls conform to particular gendered ideologies (through such mechanisms as gay- and lesbian-baiting, stigmatizing gender non- conforming behavior, and maintaining policies and practices that reward traditional gendered behaviors)—suggests that gender is not quite as “natural” as we suppose. A story featured in the online arts and culture magazine Slate showcases the strong explanatory power of biological and genetic explanations for gender di$ erences. Calling attention to the media coverage of two studies published in the prestigious scholarly journal Nature , the story observes that

[t]he Hu" ngton Post quoted one of the studies’ authors as say- ing that these “special” genes “may play a large role in di$ erences between males and females.” Yet what the Nature articles actually show is the exact opposite. ! e 12 genes residing on the Y chro- mosome exist to ensure sexual similarity .

(Richardson)

Although the original study " ndings emphasized sexual similarity, the story was “translated” to emphasize sexual di$ erence—even though this was not actually borne out by the research.

Taken together, these interrelated framing concepts—social construc- tionism, the relationship between sex and gender, gender socialization, gender identity, gender expression, and gender ranking—are all part

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 61

of understanding how a social constructionist approach is critical to feminist analysis.

Anchoring Topics through the Lens of Social Constructionism Work and Family One way of understanding the varying theories about gender con- struction is to look at the phenomenon of what is called occupational segregation of labor and how it illustrates gender ranking and gender role socialization. Speci" cally, the predominance of men in some occu- pations and women in others both communicates expectations about work and gender, and is valued and compensated di$ erently based on the predominance of men or women in that workforce.

Overview of Gender Wage Gap/Occupational Segregation of Labor As research from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other sources consistently shows, occupations are strongly separated by gender; that is, particular segments of the labor market are occupied by women, and men are clustered in other labor segments. As the chart below illustrates in broad terms, particular types of work such as administra- tive and clerical work are " elds that women are concentrated in; by contrast, production and craft work is largely done by male workers (91 percent).

A more " ne-grained analysis suggests that very particular jobs such as secretaries and administrative assistants are mostly done by women (97 percent); work that involves small children is almost entirely per- formed by female workers (preschool teachers, 97.7 percent). By contrast, male-dominated occupations—those that typically pay signi" cantly higher wages—are also as disproportionately dominated by men as those clerical positions are by women. Law enforcement o% cers are 84.5 per- cent male, 98 percent of automotive technical work is performed by men, and 97 percent of construction workers are men. Occupational segrega- tion of labor is a useful and robust topic through which to develop a more complicated picture of how the gender wage gap—the common gap between men’s and women’s earnings, with women generally receiv- ing lower pay—is promoted and reproduced. However, for the purposes of

Ta ble

2. 3

Ge nd

er Di

$ e ren

ces in

O ccu

pa tio

na l D

ist rib

uti on

s a mo

ng W

ork ers

M

en Wo

me n

Oc cup

ati on

Pe rce

nta ge

of occ

up ati

on th

at are

m en

Pe rce

nta ge

of occ

up ati

on th

at are

w om

en

Nu mb

er (in

th ous

an ds)

Pe rce

nta ge

of all

me

n e mp

loy ed

in eac

h o ccu

pa tio

n

Nu mb

er (in

th ous

an ds)

Pe rce

nta ge

of all

wo

me n e

mp loy

ed in

eac h o

ccu pa

tio n

To tal

. .  .

. .  .

67 ,33

4 10

0.0 59

,78 7

10 0.0

M an

ag eri

al 54

46 11

,00 5

16 .3

9,3 87

15 .7

Pr ofe

ssi on

al an

d tec

hn ica

l 46

54 12

,06 3

17 .9

13 ,55

2 23

.3

Sa les

52 48

7,6 01

11 .3

6,9 53

11 .6

Cl eri

cal an

d ad

mi nis

tra tiv

e sup

po rt

21 79

3,7 51

5.6 14

,12 8

23 .6

Se rvi

ce 39

61 6,4

65 9.6

10 ,06

6 16

.8 Pr

od uc

tio n a

nd cr

aft 91

9 3,5

16 20

.1 1,2

83 2.1

Op era

tiv es

76 24

9,3 02

13 .8

3,0 07

5.0 La

bo rer

s 78

22 3,6

31 5.4

1,0 11

1.7 No

te: !

e I nd

ex of

Di ssi

mi lar

ity ac

ros s a

ll o ccu

pa tio

ns in

20 01

w as

31 .1.

So urc

e: ww

w.b ls.g

ov /op

ub /m

lr/ 20

07 /06

/ar t2f

ull .pd

f

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 63

this chapter the topic is discussed to illustrate various theories about how and why men and women occupy di$ erent labor market segments. As Gabriel and Schmitz explain, “31 percent of men or women (or a com- bination of percentages that add up to 31 percent) would have to change occupations for there to be complete gender equality in occupational distributions” (19). ! e social construction of gender is both re# ected and reinforced by the gendered segregation of labor.

Two terms that capture the issues in labor segregation include vertical segregation of labor and horizontal segregation of labor . For example, women are more likely to work in administrative and clerical positions whereas men are more likely to work in manufacturing and skilled labor; this is the horizontal segregation of labor, and this clustering of women in lower-paying occupations partly explains the gender wage gap. Verti- cal segregation takes place simultaneously, and refers to the fact that even in " elds where there is a more even mix of men and women working, women tend to be clustered in positions with lower pay and prestige. For example, as the U.S. Department of Labor notes, more women than men work in professional " elds, but women are more likely to be found in health and education professional " elds (68 percent of women in this category worked in these types of " elds compared with 30 percent of men) and are paid less than those occupied by men, such as computer science and engineering. For example, “[i]n 2015, 9 percent of women in professional and related occupations were employed in the relatively high-paying computer and engineering " elds, compared with 45 percent of men” (2). Other notable statistical information includes the higher pro- portion of female workers in part-time positions—as the Department of Labor data show, “[w]omen who worked part-time made up 26 percent of all female wage and salary workers in 2010. In contrast, 13 percent of men in wage and salary jobs worked part-time” (2). Even within the same " eld, for example, medical professions, women are more likely to occupy lower-paying specialties such as public health or pediatrics, with men in higher-paid specialties like neurosurgery or internal medicine.

In this way, thinking back to Table 2.2 in this chapter, the connec- tions between traditional notions about gender—and socialization into these qualities—maps fairly clearly on to the occupational segregation of labor. Occupations that focus on managing the emotions, logistics, or

64 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

bodies of others (education of young children, administrative support for professions, hands-on healthcare " elds) are vastly female-dominated, while occupations that focus on interactions with objects or things and that call for objectivity, mechanical skills, and less human care work are male-dominated. ! e relationship between traditional ideas about mas- culinity and femininity, gender role socialization, and reproduction of gender norms, in this way, is complicated and recursive. As women and men cluster in particular occupations, this communicates a “norm” about the gendered nature of types of work; this, in turn, is represented through other institutions like education or media, which are thus part of creating a network of images and symbols that shape perceptions of gendered norms.

Notably, then, gender ranking is demonstrated by the occupational segregation of labor by the di$ erent compensation that single-gender dominated " elds receive. For example, on average, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, returning to the highly single-gender dominant " elds mentioned at the start of this section, average wage comparisons reveal how " scal value follows gender ranking, considering the level of postsec- ondary education required for these trade and technical " elds: Table 2.4 Comparison of Single-Gender Dominant Occupations and Annual Wages Occupation Percent Gender Average Annual Wage Preschool teachers 97.7% women $32,500 Secretaries and administrative assistants

79% women $39,360

Law enforcement o% cers 84.5% men $56,860 Construction trades workers

98% men $46,290

Automotive technical work 98% men $41,290 Source: https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm

Certainly some of this di$ erential valuing comes from cultural assumptions about the relative di% culty of types of work. Work that requires physical labor rather than emotional or social labor has been valued as more challenging. Feminist sociologists and feminist scholars from other " elds continue to reframe this assumption in order to make the cognitive and emotional work required to do quality care work visible and press for compensation that appropriately values that work.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 65

For women in elite and/or corporate positions, the construction of leadership itself may be gendered. For example, as Joan Williams and Rachel Dempsey discuss in What Works for Women at Work: Four Patterns Working Women Need to Know , even as women make up the majority of college students and have made inroads into many pro- fessions, positions of power remain starkly gendered masculine. Just 3.6 percent of Fortune 500 CEOs are women, for example (4), and just 15 percent of law " rm partners are women. Workplace values centered on the unencumbered worker—historically, a male employee with few if any commitments outside the workplace—exert unequal pressures on men and women workers. Williams and Dempsey report that moth- erhood is the strongest trigger for bias: women with children are 79 percent less likely to be hired, only half as likely to be promoted, and earn a lot less money than women with identical resumes but with- out children, while this bias was untrue for men with children (5). A 2013 research study showed that women CEOs were more likely to be " red than their male counterparts—38 percent versus 27 per- cent, partly because they tend to be “riskier” hires brought in at times of corporate crisis (Duberman). Leadership qualities that require unencumbered workers and that are synonymous with traditionally masculine characteristics—self-assuredness, assertiveness, daring, and authoritative and commanding demeanors—all work against women and construct leadership work as masculine in nature. Further, expecta- tions about women’s roles within the workplace often reproduce the social expectations of other environments. As Grant and Sandberg discuss, women workers who demonstrated stereotypically feminine behaviors were neither helped nor hurt by their conformity to gen- der socialization; however, women who did not conform experienced social and economic consequences. Reporting on a study by psycholo- gist Madelin Heilman, the New York Times column shows that when comparing the performance of two employees who were asked to stay late to help with preparations for an important meeting the next day,

[f ]or staying late and helping, a man was rated 14 percent more favorably than a woman. When both declined, a woman was rated 12 percent lower than a man. Over and over, after giving identical

66 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

help, a man was signi" cantly more likely to be recommended for promotions, important projects, raises and bonuses. A woman had to help just to get the same rating as a man who didn’t help.

(Grant and Sandberg, 2015) Di$ erential penalties between men and women for similar behaviors like those documented by Grant and Sandberg are illustrative of the key concepts in this section: gender ranking, the double bind, and a gendered double standard.

Methods of untangling socially constructed gender norms from bio- logical ones are complicated but still present a strong picture of the gap between “natural” or “biological” explanations and the realities of gender construction. For example, although there is a stereotype that boys and men are better at mathematics and related " elds than girls are, the gap in performance on standardized tests between boys and girls has narrowed. Further, gaps in standardized math test scores vary by country—there are no sex di$ erences between boys and girls in Rus- sia, India, and Japan, and in Iceland and Japan, girls outscored boys on math tests. Were mathematical or other abilities " xed, we would not see cross-cultural variation at this rate, nor could we explain the increase in the number of women engineers from 0.3 percent of bachelor of science degrees in 1970 to 18.9 percent in 2012.

Further, cross-cultural expectations for gender vary widely, suggest- ing that, were genetics or biology at work in shaping an immutable set of expectations around men and women, boys and girls, we would not see so much variation between cultures and nations about what is con- sidered masculine and what is considered feminine, nor occupational segregation at the rate we see it in the United States.

Language, Images, and Symbols As mentioned previously, a key aspect of assigning a gender to infants when they’re born happens through the naming process (side note: many parents " nd out the sex of their baby, using ultrasound tech- nology, in utero, which means that the process of gender assignment begins even before birth, particularly if parents-to-be take seriously the suggestion to talk to the fetus and begin addressing it by name

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 67

while still in the womb). In the United States, the majority of given names are unambiguously gendered and considered appropriate only for girls or only for boys, although there are exceptions that add nuance to this discussion.

Studies have looked at how names that were historically considered masculine, like Ashley or Courtney, have been claimed and appro- priated as girls’ names. ! ere are two related aspects of this sort of shift that connect to how gender operates in our culture. In terms of explaining why parents have chosen “boy” names for their daughters, it would seem that gender ranking comes into play here, meaning that within the logic of patriarchy, giving a girl a boy’s name is an act of emulating privilege. ! at same “logic” also explains why there has been no parallel trend of parents choosing “girl” names for their sons; giv- ing a boy a girl’s name would be adopting the status of the less-valued gender (an interesting take on this issue can be found in Johnny Cash’s classic country song, “A Boy Named Sue”). In terms of the consequences of parents choosing “boy” names for their daughters, we see that as more parents choose these names for their daughters, fewer parents choose those same names for their sons. In e$ ect, then, there seems to be a tipping point; if too many parents choose a “masculine” name for their daughter, parents of male children avoid that name as it comes to be seen as feminine.

! e popular website Nameberry, which tracks baby naming trends, has noted, however, that some new trends may be emerging. ! e site reports, in a 2012 post, seeing “parents ‘reclaiming’ for their sons uni- sex names that had veered girlward and names rising in tandem for both sexes.” Another phenomenon that has yet to be quanti" ed but has been reported anecdotally is that more parents are deliberately choosing gender-neutral names. Some parents, for example, are choosing not to " nd out the sex of their baby before its birth and decide on a name that could be used for either a boy or a girl.

Fast forwarding to adulthood, two recent studies that focus on gen- der bias in the workplace highlight the role that gendered names play in maintaining inequality. In one study referenced perhaps most notably by Sheryl Sandberg in her Lean In- based TED Talk, a business school professor gave his students a case study of a successful entrepreneur

68 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

named Heidi Roizen, only he changed the name to Howard in one sec- tion. ! e professor, Francis Flynn, recalls

[b]efore class, I had the students go online and rate their impres- sions of “Roizen” on several dimensions. As you might expect, the results show that students were much harsher on Heidi than on Howard across the board. Although they think she’s just as com- petent and e$ ective as Howard, they don’t like her, they wouldn’t hire her, and they wouldn’t want to work with her. As gender researchers would predict, this seems to be driven by how much they disliked Heidi’s aggressive personality. ! e more assertive they thought Heidi was, the more harshly they judged her (but the same was not true for those who rated Howard).

! e ultimate point here, of course, is not about names per se, but about the gendered double standard for workplace behavior. And yet the study is a stark reminder that names almost always convey our gen- der, and that gendered stereotyping and double standards often kick in on that basis alone.

In another recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States , researchers asked natural sciences professors to rate the application materials of college students apply- ing for a position as a laboratory manager. As with the Flynn study, the materials were identical in every way except for the name of the applicant: Jennifer or John. According to the study’s authors, “[f ]aculty participants rated the male applicant as signi" cantly more competent and hirable than the (identical) female applicant. ! ese participants also selected a higher starting salary and o$ ered more career mentoring to the male applicant” (qtd. in Sharp). A " nal study shows how names are not only gendered but racialized. In this study, published by the Social Science Research Network, researchers sent an identical email to 6,500 professors across the United States. ! e researchers posed as prospective students asking to meet with the professor, with the only thing distinguishing the emails from one another being the names of those prospective students: Brad Anderson, Meredith Roberts, Lamar Washington, LaToya Brown, Juanita Martinez, Deepak Patel, Sonali

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 69

Desai, Chang Wong, and Mei Chen. ! e " ndings: “faculty ignored requests from women and minorities at a higher rate than requests from Caucasian males, particularly in higher-paying disciplines and private institutions” (Milkman, Akinola, and Chugh). In other words, profes- sors were more likely to respond to the prospective students who, based on their name, were perceived to be white and male. ! ese examples clearly reveal some of the workplace and education-related implications of gendered and racialized naming practices, and how social construc- tionism is at work in large and small ways in communicating gender and race, as well as social roles and status.

A di$ erent way that gender comes into play in relation to naming has to do with the use of " rst names, last names, and/or titles in social interactions. Henley and Freeman argue that status is often communi- cated and reproduced by the levels of intimacy allowed to be expressed between two people depending on their social or employment status. Subordinates and superordinates have varying levels of freedom to address each other by " rst or last names, with the superordinate granted greater levels of familiarity than the subordinate. On a related note, many women professors note the tendency of students to refer to them either by " rst name or as “Mrs.,” but not by their title of Doctor or Professor. While campus culture varies greatly across the United States, anecdotal evidence suggests a gendered dimension to this, with female professors consistently experiencing this phenomenon to a greater degree than their male colleagues.

Perhaps one of the most notable gendered controversies around naming, and socially communicated messages about naming and sta- tus, is the issue of (typically) heterosexual women changing their last name upon marriage. As Scheuble, Johnson, and Johnson explain, “[t]he practice of married women taking their husband’s last name originates from the patriarchal family system under which women were considered their husband’s property” (282); yet, despite the many strides toward gender equity, this practice continues for the major- ity of women. Research and demographic information suggests that 80 percent to 90 percent or more of heterosexual women choose to take their husband’s last name upon marriage, with women with greater levels of educational attainment and who marry at older ages less likely

70 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

to adopt their husband’s surname (Lockwood, Burton, and Boersma 827). As part of the social construction of gender roles, name changing remains a controversial practice among feminists, but a widely held cul- tural norm. One research study reported that women who change their surnames identi" ed tradition and relationship bonding as key reasons for their decision, yet Lockwood, Burton, and Boersma concluded that concern for family dynamics—including upsetting extended family members with nontraditional naming choices—remained an impor- tant consideration for many women (837). ! at is, despite feminist critique of this patriarchal tradition, many women continue to adhere to traditional values. Some arguments suggest that with other strides in gender equity, taking a spouse’s last name is not as meaningful now as in the past, such as Lynn Harris’s argument in a 2003 Salon article, “Mrs. Feminist”:

[t]oday, a woman’s decision to take her husband’s name is not necessarily, or merely, “retro.” When it comes to such political-slash- personal acts, the stakes have changed, and therefore so have the statements we’re making with them. I would argue that we’re not losing battles; we’re choosing them. We’re not retreating; we’re showing, subtly, how far we’ve come.

Although a clear minority, some women keep their name upon marriage or take their husband’s name without ditching their own, through hyphenation. An even smaller number of couples have gone further, by having the husband take his wife’s name (either alone or through hyphenating with his last name), or by the couple legally declaring a new last name that is sometimes a combination of their two names. Whatever the decision and accompanying rationale, the argument seems to rest on the value attached to names and the weight ascribed to this practice within the context of cultural values around names and identity.

Bodies Gender is inscribed on our bodies in terms of their shape, size, and appearance, and is also performed through how we use and move our

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 71

bodies in the world. Our culture constructs masculine and feminine bodies in opposition to one another, with feminine bodies expected to be slender, soft, and hairless, and masculine bodies expected to be taller, broader, more muscular, and hairy. One way to explore and reveal how this works is to look at images that deliberately reverse these constructions.

As feminist sociologist Judith Lorber asserts, “[g]ender is such a familiar part of daily life that it usually takes a deliberate disruption of our expectations of how women and men are supposed to act to pay attention to how it is produced.” Among fans of comic books, there are extensive and ongoing conversations about the gendering of comic book characters, with a vibrant feminist critique of the way that women characters are depicted and the storylines they are given. Below is an example of one artist, Aaron Clutter, who draws attention to how gender is constructed in this aspect of popular culture by depict- ing male superheroes in feminine clothing and poses. Note that the artist has separated out three distinct aspects of the social construction of gendered bodies: (1) the bodies themselves, in terms of their size and muscularity; (2) the clothing; and (3) bodily posture/presentation. ! e bodies themselves are still coded masculine, with broad shoulders, square jaws, and de" ned, bulging muscles, but the clothing and poses are distinctly feminine and sexualized.

Artist Hana Pesut’s photographic series entitled “Switcheroo” explores similar terrain. ! e series consists of paired, side-by-side photographs; in the " rst, a couple poses together wearing their own clothing, whereas in the second the couple switches places and clothing, and also recreates the other’s pose and posture.

In this example, we get a visual reminder and con" rmation that in some ways, the boundaries of femininity are more elastic than the boundaries of masculinity when it comes to clothing. When the women in these photographs swap the clothes previously worn by the man, they are often oversized but not necessarily categorically di$ erent than cloth- ing we would recognize as commonly seen worn by women, whereas the reverse is much less often true for the men in the photographs. At the same time, however, the postures and poses are often quite di$ erent, such that seeing the women mimic the men’s posture and pose and vice

72 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

Figure 2.6 Depiction of Male Superheroes in Feminized Postures Source: Aaron Clutter, Editor-in-Chief, Comic Booked, www.comicbooked.com

versa is startling and upsets expectations. Feminist philosopher San- dra Bartky has explored these gender di$ erences in “gesture, posture, movement, and general bodily comportment,” noting that “[f ]eminine movement, gesture, and posture must exhibit not only constriction, but grace and a certain eroticism restrained by modesty: all three” (81). Henley and Freeman’s early work in this area explores similar territory; they note that

[i]t is often considered “unladylike” for a woman to use her body too forcefully, to sprawl, to stand with her legs widely spread, to sit

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 73

with her feet up, or to cross the ankle of one leg over the knee of the other. Many of these positions are ones of strength and dominance.

(82)

! ey further note that di$ erences in masculine and feminine cloth- ing styles help reinforce these di$ erences, as masculine clothing allows greater range of motion and more coverage. Bartky makes a similar point when noting that “women in short, low-cut dresses are told to avoid bending over at all, but if they must, great care must be taken to avoid an unseemly display of breast or rump” (83). While the increasing sexualization of women’s bodies has meant that there are, for better or worse, fewer restrictions on exposing bare skin, we can see evidence of the continuation of this gender norm on websites devoted to celebrity gossip and entertainment “news”; these sites delight in posting paparazzi photos of so-called wardrobe malfunctions or inadvertent # ashing, not only to titillate viewers but also to subtly or not-so-subtly shame said celebrities for lapses in ladylike presentation.

Yet another way that gender is inscribed on the body is through tattooing. ! e global history of tattooing is long and complex, and social norms related to tattoos have changed considerably in the past few decades. While historically it was considered to be a signi" cant

Figure 2.7 Artist Hana Pesut draws attention to gender cues in her photographic series “Switcheroo” Source: Photography by Hana Pesut, www.sincerelyhana.com

74 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

transgression of feminine gender norms for women to be tattooed, the norms are much more nuanced today, and there is no longer a signi" cant gap between the number of men and women who get tattooed. Hawkes, Senn, and ! orn (2004) cite a study that estimates that “women cur- rently acquire half of all tattoos, a rate that has quadrupled since the 1970s” (594). In spite of the relatively equal numbers of men and women getting tattooed, however, studies seem to suggest that there are gen- dered di$ erences in perceptions of tattooed people.

In order to get at the nuanced ways that tattoos inscribe gender on the body, we need to consider a number of factors, including the placement, type, and size of those tattoos, as well as the race/ethnicity and social class of tattooed women. As we consider each of these fac- tors, we are reminded of how women’s bodies are a central site of social negotiation and struggle. On the one hand, many women get tattooed as a way to deliberately reject normative constructions of femininity, whereas other women do so with deliberate and conscious attention toward staying within the bounds of gendered social expectation. With regard to placement, there is " rst the question of whether a tattoo is visible or generally hidden from view while wearing clothing. Hawkes, Senn, and ! orn’s (2004) study found that both men and women had a more negative attitude toward women whose tattoos were visible. For some women, this is precisely the point; they aim to defy expectations of feminine appearance. A 2013 study in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior found that tattooed women were more likely to be viewed as sexually promiscuous and were quicker to be approached by men in the experiments conducted, while their level of physical attractiveness was una$ ected by the presence of the tattoo (Guéguen), suggesting that body modi" cations like tattooing become social indicators with par- ticular symbolic, and gendered, functions.

Beyond visible versus hidden, however, is the question of where on the body the tattoo is placed. Some parts of the body are particularly laden with meaning when it comes to both gender and sexuality. Many young women get tattooed on the small of their back; in slang terms, these tattoos are frequently called “tramp stamps,” language that is both gendered and sexualized, in that it is an aspect of slut shaming. Argu- ably, there are also classed associations with the “tramp stamp” label.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 75

A tattoo in that location is often described as “trashy,” as opposed to respectably middle-class. Research shows that the size of a woman’s tattoo is also a factor in whether and to what extent it is seen as a viola- tion of feminine gender norms, with smaller tattoos being seen as more feminine than larger ones. Color and type are also important factors; pastel or primary-colored tattoos of butter# ies, hearts, roses, the names or footprints/handprints of children, and inspirational words or phrases are all generally considered feminine.

A " nal point here is that the consumer marketplace has responded to women’s desire to navigate this tricky gender landscape and perhaps to try to have it both ways, so to speak, as evidenced by the cosmetic company Sephora’s tattoo concealer makeup, which carries the name of Kat Von D, celebrity tattoo artist, star of reality television show LA Ink , herself heavily tattooed. From the Sephora website:

Kat says, “If you wanna hide a tattoo just for one day, the proper concealer can make that happen! No one has to see what you don’t want them to see!” Take it from the tattoo pro: “I think just as much as people have the choice to be tattooed, they should also have the liberty to look whatever way they want whenever they want.” ! is is your ticket to tattoo freedom!

Case Study Gender Shifts in Professions Clerical and Secretarial Work In today’s labor force, clerical work generally and secretary or reception- ist positions speci" cally are female-dominated; however, clerical work up through the late 19th century was an exclusively male profession. As England notes, prior to the 20th century, few women engaged in paid work; less than one-" fth of women worked outside the home, and they were typically employed in the areas of domestic work, agriculture, and fac- tory work (particularly textiles). In 1871, according to England and Boyer,

clerical work accounted for a tiny proportion of all workers, less than one percent in the US in 1870 and Canada in 1871. Clerical

76 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

work in the US grew by over 450 percent between 1900 and 1903, at which point 9 percent of the labor force held clerical jobs.

(310)

Workers performing clerical functions were almost exclusively male, and the clerical occupation was “high status work, o$ ered good job security and for those men in senior positions was a most prestigious job of the sort associated with middle management today” (310). With the development of technologies like typewriters and stenography, in 1880, cultural attitudes about women’s stereotypical traits like compli- ance and " ne motor coordination/dexterity led to occupational shifts, although these were visions of femininity typically connected to white women; over time (through various media imagery and advertising campaigns, an increase in demand for clerical workers that accom- panied technological and industrial shifts from agricultural to urban industries), the demand and rewards for this type of work changed. England notes, “[i]n the popular imaginary, clerical work was promoted as a desirable job for young, educated white women to do for a few years prior to marriage” (313); race and ethnic bias accompanied this shift as o% ce work was believed to be “reserved only for young, white protestant women” (314). Feminist scholars have examined the way that secretarial work o$ ered some women opportunities to enter the labor market, while simultaneously positioning the work as low status, even as the technology aptitude and literacy required to do the work e$ ec- tively was high. For example, Liz Rohan has challenged the class bias that has framed salaried professional work as higher skilled than the hourly wage work done by secretaries and clerical sta$ , even when the “amount of technological skill [and] .  .  . the amount of training and literacy the secretaries need to proofread technical documents” is sub- stantial (Rohan 242).

In today’s economy, secretarial work is almost exclusively per- formed by women and yet the tasks associated with this occupation have not substantially changed. An occupation once assumed to be high status and requiring traditional masculine traits has become dramati- cally female-dominated with no accompanying change in duties. ! is

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 77

transformation highlights the way that social institutions can shift and adapt our understanding of gender over time.

Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Medicine A contemporary example of the feminization of a profession comes from veterinary medicine, which went from being male-dominated to being female-dominated over a relatively short span of time. In 1960, only 2 percent of veterinarians were women, but as of 2015, according to the American Veterinary Medicine Association, women comprised 55.2 percent of veterinarians in private practice, and 52.2 percent of veterinarians in public or corporate settings (“Market Research Statis- tics”). Women’s numbers in the profession may grow even larger in the decades to come, because women now constitute almost 80 percent of all students studying veterinary medicine. Sociologist Anne E. Lincoln studied the feminization of veterinary education and found that

what’s really driving feminization of the " eld is what I call “pre- emptive # ight”—men not applying because of women’s increasing enrollment. Also, fewer men than women are graduating with a Bachelor’s degree, so they aren’t applying because they don’t have the prerequisites.

Lincoln’s research challenged the belief that women’s entry into veteri- nary medicine was an expression of caretaking, as well as the belief that women are less concerned than men with high earnings (Lincoln, 2010). It should be noted that Lincoln’s research comes from outside the " eld itself (as noted above, she is a sociologist), and that professionals and professional organizations within the " eld have struggled to go beyond o$ ering guesses as to why the gender composition of the profession has changed so rapidly and thoroughly in recent decades. A " nal note is that though women have represented the majority of veterinarians in the U.S. for several years, leadership in the " eld’s professional organi- zations, as well as leadership in schools of veterinary medicine, is still largely male. ! e Women’s Veterinary Leadership Initiative is focused on eliminating this leadership gap in the profession.

78 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

! ough the " rst two examples of the feminization of a profession dis- cussed here resulted in declining prestige and pay, feminization does not of necessity have that result, as can be seen in the case of pharmaceutical medicine, which was dubbed “! e Most Egalitarian of All Professions” in a 2012 report by two Harvard University economists, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz. According to Goldin and Katz, only 8 percent of pharmacists were women in 1960, but that number had risen to over 55 percent by 2012. Unlike veterinary medicine, however, in which women’s entry both coincided with and resulted in a decline in pay and status, the earnings of pharmacists continue to be strong, the status of the profession has not fallen, and women pharmacists earn 92 cents for every dollar earned by men in the " eld, the smallest wage gap in health care " elds, and a lower wage gap than in most other high-paying profes- sions, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. What sets the profession apart from the others discussed here is that women began entering the " eld at the same time that it was undergoing many structural changes; the number of jobs available for pharmacists has remained strong, and there has been a decline in small-business own- ers running their own pharmacies. Today, there are far more available positions for pharmacists in the pharmacies of chain drugstores (Wal- greens and CVS, for example) and big box stores (Target, Wal-Mart, etc.). Signi" cantly, these types of positions o$ er more # exible schedules and fewer responsibilities than being a pharmacist who is also a small- business owner. Goldin and Katz also report that “[p]harmacy earnings appear to be highly linear in hours and in that sense pharmacy has a relatively low ‘career cost of family.’” For a number of reasons, and for better or worse, the market for pharmaceuticals has expanded in recent decades in ways that have positively impacted women’s entry into and experience of the " eld.

End of Chapter Elements Evaluating Prior Knowledge 1. Think about your own exposure to gender identity and gender

awareness. Do you remember when you first became aware (or were made aware) of your gender? What moment or moments in your

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 79

life have you experienced a sense of what it means to be a boy or a girl? What cues did you get that led you to that awareness? How was your awareness of your gender intertwined with other aspects of your identity, such as your social class, your race/ethnicity, and/or your sexual identity?

2. Have there been moments in your life that you’ve felt limited or empowered by your gender identity? In what settings did you have those experiences?

3. This chapter briefly discusses several of the sites or arenas where gender socialization takes place. What do you recall about your experiences with those institutions when you were growing up? And today?

4. Prior to reading this chapter, had you ever encountered the word “cisgender” or “cissexual”? If so, where? If you had not encoun- tered these terms before, what do you make of them? If you iden- tify as cisgender, how does it feel to have a label to describe that identity?

Application Exercises 1. Occupational segregation by gender is one explanation for the gender

pay gap. See Tables 2.3 and 2.4, which document the occupational segregation of labor, and examine the dominance of each gender in particular occupations. Select one female-dominated field and explain what qualities are typically associated with the responsibilities of that work environment. Do the same for a male-dominated occupation. How might a biological determinist explain this occupational cluster- ing? What would a social constructionist focus on?

2. Choose a favorite film genre, and screen at least three films in that genre. Take note of the number and type of women characters and relevant identity factors—marital status, educational attainment, race, class, sexual orientation . What conclusions can you draw about “women in X genre” of film based on your analysis? What messages about gender would you draw as a viewer just paying attention to norms, values, and behaviors exhibited by female characters in that genre?

80 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

3. Take a field trip to a local department store like Wal-Mart or Target and peruse the toy aisles. Jot down what you observe about the mes- sages, implications, and subtext communicated by the arrangement of the toys; how they are divided, marketed, packaged, and directed; and what they communicate about gender.

4. While the kind of dress codes discussed above in the gender social- ization section are not nearly as widespread at the collegiate level as they are in middle schools and high schools, this is not to say that the explicit and/or implicit gender policing of clothing does not occur on college campuses. For example, investigate whether the recreation and wellness center on your campus has a dress code; if so, analyze it for gendered messages. Also, what are the tacit rules on your campus for classroom attire, and how are those rules gendered?

Skills Assessment 1. View the 2016 science fiction film Passengers , paying careful atten-

tion to the gendered identities of the two main characters, played by Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt. Analyze the film’s plot using chapter concepts.

2. Two of the academic fields with the smallest percentage of women earning doctorates are engineering 1 (22 percent) and philosophy 2 (21.9 percent). Explore your impressions and associations with these two fields of academic study; are they “gendered masculine” in ways that explain this disparity? If so, are they gendered masculine in similar or different ways?

3. Gender reveal parties are becoming more popular in the United States. Here’s a description of a typical gender reveal party:

! e house was " lled with balloons and confetti, and the guests were decked out in team colors, ready to cheer. Minutes before the party kicked o$ , they eagerly cast votes on the outcome. But this festive gathering was not a Super Bowl celebration. ! e decorations were all in pinks and powder blues, and the sides involved were “Team Boy” and “Team Girl.” ! is was a gender- reveal party, during which expectant parents share the moment

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 81

they discover their baby’s sex, unveiling results of the ultrasound test among loved ones.

Write a two to four paragraph analysis of the gender reveal party as a cultural phenomenon. Using concepts from this chapter, how can you complicate our understanding of these parties and what they signify about our culture?

Discussion Questions 1. Why do you think that biological explanations for gender roles

and expectations are so powerful and common sense? In what ways do biological explanations fail to account for human experiences broadly or your own experience specifically?

2. In what ways can you observe race, class, and sexuality operating in definitions of masculinity and femininity?

3. Review the chapter sections on institutions as agents of gender socialization. In what ways do you see institutions operating not just independently but in overlapping ways? Explore how different pairs of institutions operate together to reinforce gender socializa- tion. For example, organized religion and the family are intercon- nected both because of theological beliefs about gender roles and family responsibilities and because religious involvement can be a significant source of support and community for families.

4. Read Charlotte Alter’s article in Time , “Seeing Sexism from Both Sides: What Trans Men Experience” (http://time.com/4371196/ seeing-sexism-from-both-sides-what-trans-men-experience/). How might trans men be uniquely poised to shed light on how gender is socially constructed in our society?

Writing Prompts 1. Describe a gender norm that you regularly perform and that, for

the purposes of this assignment, you are willing to break for a set period of time. Describe how you broke the norm and who saw you break it. What reactions did you receive? How does your experiment support and/or challenge the arguments contained in this chapter? How does your experiment illustrate this chapter’s key concepts?

82 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

2. Screen the documentary Tough Guise 2: Violence, Manhood, and American Culture or The Bro Code: How Contemporary Culture Cre- ates Sexist Men. Then do some Internet research into some of the school shootings that most traumatized Americans: the Columbine shooting in 1999 and the Newtown shootings in 2012. Write an essay in which you examine the phenomenon of school shootings through a social constructionist lens that considers the formation of masculine identities in the United States.

3. Select two of the following comedic films targeting young male viewers. What vision of masculinity do they construct? Van Wilder , Old School , Pineapple Express , Caddyshack , The Big Lebowski , Tropic Thunder , The Royal Tenenbaums , Swingers , Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle.

4. Take a brief tour through a department store or big box store like Target or Wal-Mart (or their websites), looking carefully at the newborn, baby, and toddler sections of clothing and accessories (e.g., bibs and pacifiers). Make a list of all the gendered messages that are communicated through text, images, colors, styles, and so forth. What conclusions can you draw about how gender is “framed” even as early as infancy? What qualities, activities, and characteris- tics are emphasized for girls versus boys?

5. Watch the following commercial, entitled “Pretty” for Droid phones: (www.youtube.com/watch?v=w83UQkiuNZQ). Here is the text of the voiceover in the commercial:

Droid. Should a phone be pretty? Should it be a tiara-wearing digitally clueless beauty pageant queen? Or should it be fast? Racehorse duct-taped to a Scud missile fast. We say the latter. So we built the phone that does. Does rip through the Web like a circular saw through a ripe banana. Is it a precious porcelain " gurine of a phone? In truth? No. It’s not a princess. It’s a robot. A phone that trades hair-do for can-do.

How does this ad illustrate several key concepts from this chap- ter? Write a three- to five-paragraph essay that analyzes the cul- tural messages that this commercial reinforces.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 83

Notes 1 www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/09/14/doctorates#sthash.1uZBi8e6.dpbs; see

also Yoder. 2 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/women-in-philosophy-do-

the-math/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_php=true&_ type=blogs&_r=2&

Works Cited Bartky, Sandra. “Foucault, Femininity, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power.”

In ! e Politics of Women’s Bodies: Sexuality, Appearance, and Behavior . Ed. Rose Weitz. 3rd edition. Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 76–97.

Bates, Karen Grigsby. “Study: Black Girls are Being Pushed Out of School.” NPR News. 13 February 2015. www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/02/13/384005652/ study-black-girls-are-being-pushed-out-of-school. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Bettis, Pamela, and Natalie Guice Adams. “Short Skirts and Breast Juts: Cheerleading, Eroticism, and Schools.” Sex Education , vol. 6, no. 2, 2006, pp. 121–133.

Bian, Lin, Sarah-Jane Leslie, and Andrei Cimpian. “Gender Stereotypes about Intel- lectual Ability Emerge Early and In# uence Children’s Interests.” Science , vol. 355, no. 6323, 2017, pp. 389–391. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6323/389. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Bielanko, Monica. “Boy or Girl? 4-Month-Old Being Raised Genderless.” Yahoo Shine. www.babble.com/baby/boy-or-girl-4-month-old-being-raised-genderless/. Accessed 24 May 2011.

Boyer, Kate. “Place and the Politics of Virtue: Clerical Work, Corporate Anxiety, and Changing Meanings of Public Womanhood in Early Twentieth Century Mon- treal.” Gender, Place, and Culture , vol. 5, no. 3, 1998, pp. 261–276.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. “May 2016 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates United States.” US Department of Labor. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Burn, Shawn Meghan. Women Across Cultures: A Global Perspective . McGraw-Hill, 2010. Center for American Women and Politics. Rutgers University. 25 May 2014. www.

cawp.rutgers.edu/. Accessed 5 July 2017. Connell, Raewyn. “! e Social Organization of Masculinity.” In Feminist ! eory Reader:

Local and Global Perspectives . Eds. Carole McCann and Seung-kyung Kim. Rout- ledge, 2013, pp. 252–265.

“Couple Finally Reveals Child’s Gender, Five Years After Birth.” Yahoo Shine. January 2012. https://ca.style.yahoo.com/couple-" nally-reveals-child-s-gender— " ve-years-after-birth-20120123.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé, Priscilla Ocen, and Jyoti Nanda. “Black Girls Matter: Pushed Out, Overpoliced, and Underprotected.” African American Policy Forum . 2015. www. aapf.org/recent/2014/12/coming-soon-blackgirlsmatter-pushed-out-overpoliced- and-underprotected. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Department of Labor. “Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2015.” Bureau of Labor Statistics. November 2016. www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/2015/ home.htm. Accessed 6 July 2017.

84 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

Diehm, Jan. “How Women Win Best Actress Oscars, All In One Chart.” Hu" ng- ton Post . 16 January 2014. www.hu% ngtonpost.com/2014/01/16/best-actress- winners_n_4596033.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Duberman, Amanda. “Why Women CEOs Are Fired More ! an Men.” Hu" ngton Post. 7 May 2014. www.hu% ngtonpost.com/2014/05/07/women-ceos-" red- more-than-men_n_5249226.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Dusenbery, Maya. “Why the Gender Gap in Children’s Allowances Matters.” Feminist- ing . 24 April 2014. http://feministing.com/2014/04/24/why-the-gender-gap-in- childrens-allowances-matters/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

England, Kim, and Kate Boyer. “Women’s Work: ! e Feminization and Shifting Mean- ings of Clerical Work.” Journal of Social History , vol. 43, no. 2, 2009, pp. 307–340.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sexing the Body . Basic Books, 2000. Fortini, Amanda. “! e ‘Bitch’ and the ‘Ditz.’” New York Magazine . 16 November 2008.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/nationalinterest/52184/. Accessed 5 July 2017. Gabriel, Paul, and Susanne Schmitz. “Gender Di$ erences in Occupational Distribu-

tions among Workers.” Monthly Labor Review , 2007, pp. 19–24. www.bls.gov/ opub/mlr/2007/06/art2full.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Gilligan, Carol. In a Di# erent Voice: Psychological ! eory and Women’s Development . Harvard University Press, 2012.

Girl Scouts of America. “Frequently Asked Questions: Social Issues.” 28 May 2014. www.gsgcf.org/content/dam/girlscouts-gsgcf/documents/GSGCF%20FAQ%20 2%2015%2012.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Goldin, Claudia and Lawrence Katz. “! e Most Egalitarian of All Professions: Phar- macy and the Evolution of a Family-Friendly Occupation.” National Bureau of Economic Research. Working Paper 18410. 2012. www.nber.org/papers/w18410. pdf.

Gomez, Carlos Andres. Man Up: Reimagining Modern Manhood . Avery, 2013. Gould, Lois. “X: A Fabulous Child’s Story.” Polare , February 1998. https://gendercen

tre.org.au/resources/support-resources/gender-queer?download=817:x-a-fabu lous-childs-story&start=15. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Goulette, Natalie, John Wooldredge, James Frank, and Lawrence Travis III. “From Initial Appearance to Sentencing: Do Female Defendants Experience Disparate Treatment?” Journal of Criminal Justice , vol. 43, 2015, pp. 406–417.

Grant, Adam, and Sheryl Sandberg. “Madam C.E.O., Get Me a Co$ ee.” New York Times . 6 February 2015. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/opinion/sun day/sheryl-sandberg-and-adam-grant-on-women-doing-o% ce-housework.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

——. “When Talking About Bias Back" res.” New York Times . 6 December 2014. www. nytimes.com/2014/12/07/opinion/sunday/adam-grant-and-sheryl-sandberg-on- discrimination-at-work.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Guante. “10 Responses to the Phrase ‘Man Up.’” Guante . www.guante.info/2012/02/10- responses-to-phrase-man-up-spoken.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Guéguen, Nicolas. “E$ ects of a Tattoo on Men’s Behavior and Attitudes Towards Women: An Experimental Field Study.” Archives of Sexual Behavior , vol. 2, no. 8, 2013, pp. 1517–1524.

Harris, Lynn. “Mrs. Feminist.” Salon . 14 October 2003. www.salon.com/2003/10/16/ names_2/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 85

Hawkes, Daina, Charlene Y. Senn, and Chantal ! orn. “Factors that In# uence Atti- tudes Toward Women with Tattoos.” Sex Roles , vol. 50, 2004, pp. 593–604.

Henley, Nancy, and Jo Freeman. “! e Sexual Politics of Interpersonal Behavior.” In Women: Images and Realities . Eds. Suzanne Kelly, Gowri Parameswaran, and Nancy Schniedewind. 5th edition. McGraw Hill, 2012, pp. 82–88.

Henn, Steve. “Facebook Gives Users New Options to Identify Gender.” All Tech Consid- ered . National Public Radio. 13 February 2014.

Hetter, Katia. “Girl Scouts Accepts Transgender Kid, Provokes Cookie Boycott.” CNN . 13 January 2012. www.cnn.com/2012/01/13/living/girl-scout-boycott/index.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Hill, Catherine. “Barriers and Bias: ! e Status of Women in Leadership.” American Association of University Women . 2016. www.aauw.org/research/barriers-and-bias/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

“Hours Spent Doing Unpaid Household Work by Age and Sex, 2003–2007.” Bureau of Labor Statistics. 6 August 2009. www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/ted_20090806.htm. Accessed 5 July 2017.

International Cheer Union. “History of Cheerleading.” 24 February 2014. http:// cheerunion.org/history/cheerleading/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Johnson, Allan. ! e Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy . Temple University Press, 1997.

Johnson, Jenna. “On College Campuses, a Gender Gap in Student Government.” ! e Washington Post . 16 March 2011. www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/on- college-campuses-a-gender-gap-in-student-government/2011/03/10/ABim1Bf_ story.html?utm_term=.1d0084cc0$ 4. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Junior Achievement USA and the Allstate Foundation. “Teens and Personal Finance Survey.” 10 April 2014. www.juniorachievement.org/documents/20009/20652/20 15+Teens+and+Personal+Finance+Survey. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Kawashima-Ginsberg, Kei, and Nancy ! omas. “Civic Engagement and Political Lead- ership among Women—A Call for Solutions.” CIRCLE Fact Sheet. May 2013. www.civicyouth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Gender-and-Political-Leader ship-Fact-Sheet-3.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Kimmel, Michael. “Solving the ‘Boy Crisis’ in Schools.” Hu" ngton Post . 30 April 2013. www.hu% ngtonpost.com/michael-kimmel/solving-the-boy-crisis-in_b_3126379. html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Kivel, Paul. “! e ‘Act-Like-A-Man’ Box.” In Men’s Lives . Ed. Michael S. Kimmel and Michael A. Messner. 7th edition. Pearson, 2007, pp. 148–150.

Kli$ , Sarah, and Soo Oh. “Why Aren’t ! ere More Women in Congress?” Vox . 4 November 2016. www.vox.com/a/women-in-congress. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Levin, Sam. “First US Person to Have ‘Intersex’ on Birth Certi" cate: ‘! ere’s Power in Knowing Who You Are.’” ! e Guardian . 11 January 2017. www.theguardian.com/ world/2017/jan/11/intersex-rights-gender-sara-kelly-keenan-birth-certi" cate. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Lincoln, Anne E. “! e Shifting Supply of Men and Women to Occupations: Feminiza- tion in Veterinary Education.” Social Forces , vol. 88, 2010, pp. 1969–1998.

Lockwood, Penelope, Caitlin Burton, and Katelyn Boersma. “Tampering with Tradi- tion: Rationales Concerning Women’s Married Names and Children’s Surnames.” Sex Roles , vol. 65, 2011, pp. 827–839.

86 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

Lorber, Judith. Paradoxes of Gender . Yale University Press, 1994. “Market Research Statistics: U.S. Veterinarians 2015.” American Veterinary Medicine

Association. www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Statistics/Pages/Market-research-sta tistics-US-veterinarians.aspx. Accessed 25 January 2017.

Milkman, Katherine, Modupe Akinola, and Dolly Chugh. “What Happens Before? A Field Experiment Exploring How Pay and Representation Di$ erentially Shape Bias on the Pathway into Organizations.” Journal of Applied Psychology , vol. 100, no. 6, 2015, pp. 1678–1712.

Mills, C. Wright. ! e Sociological Imagination . Oxford University Press, 1959. Parker, Sydney. “! e Mormon Feminists Fighting for Women’s Right to Join the Priest-

hood.” Broadly . 1 March 2016. https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/kb4dwy/the- mormon-feminists-" ghting-for-womens-right-to-join-the-priesthood, Accessed 5 July 2017.

Pesut, Hana. Switcheroo . Schapco, 2013. Reilly, Katie. “Sesame Street Reaches Out to 2.7 Million American Children With an

Incarcerated Parent.” Pew Research Center . 21 June 2013. www.pewresearch.org/ fact-tank/2013/06/21/sesame-street-reaches-out-to-2–7-million-american-chil dren-with-an-incarcerated-parent/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Richardson, Sarah. “Y All the Hype?” Slate.com . 5 May 2014. www.slate.com/articles/ double_x/doublex/2014/05/sex_difference_findings_in_human_genome_stud ies_be_very_skeptical.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Rohan, Liz. “Reveal Codes: A New Lens for Examining and Historicizing the Work of Secretaries.” Computers and Composition , vol. 20, no. 3, 2003, pp. 237–253.

Sadker, David, and Karen R. Zittleman. “Gender Inequity in School: Not a ! ing of the Past.” In Women: Images and Realities, A Multicultural Anthology . Eds. Amy Kessel- man, Lily D. McNair, and Nancy Schniedewind. McGraw Hill, 2011.

Sandberg, Sheryl. “Why We Have Too Few Women Leaders.” TED Talk. December 2010. www.ted.com/talks/sheryl_sandberg_why_we_have_too_few_women_leaders? language=en. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Sandberg, Sheryl. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead . Knopf, 2013. Scheuble, Laurie, David R. Johnson, and Katherine M. Johnson. “Marital Name Chang-

ing Attitudes and Plans of College Students: Comparing Change over Time and across Regions.” Sex Roles , vol. 66, 2012, pp. 282–292.

Seelye, Katharine Q. “School Vote Stirs Debate on Girls as Leaders.” New York Times . 11 April 2013. www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/education/phillips-andover-girls- leadership-debated.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

! e Sentencing Project. “Fact Sheet: Incarcerated Women and Girls.” 2015. www. sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Incarcerated-Women-and- Girls.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Serano, Julia. “Trans Woman Manifesto.” In Feminist ! eory: A Reader . Eds. Wendy Kolmar and Frances Bartkowski. McGraw Hill, 2013, pp. 547–550.

Sharp, Gwen. “We Like You a Lot, Ms. Scientist, But We’d Rather Hire the Guy.” Weblog entry. Ms. Magazine Blog . 26 September 2012. http://msmagazine.com/ blog/2012/09/26/we-like-you-a-lot-ms-scientist-but-wed-rather-hire-the-guy/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Smith, Stacy. “Research Informs and Empowers.” Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media. https://seejane.org/research-informs-empowers/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER 87

Stryker, Susan. Transgender History . Seal Press, 2008. Tanenbaum, Leora. Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation . Seven Stories

Press, 1999. UN Women. “Facts and Figures: Leadership and Political Participation.” UN Women.

www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts- and-" gures. Accessed 1 March 2017.

“Unisex Names: Toward a Gender-Free Ideal?” Nameberry. 22 August 2012. https://name berry.com/blog/unisex-names-toward-a-gender-free-ideal. Accessed 5 July 2017.

University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. “Time, Money, and Who Does the Laundry.” University of Michigan , no. 7, 2007. http://ns.umich.edu/podcast/ img/ISR_Update1–07.pdf. Accessed July 5 2017.

Valenti, Jessica. Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters . Seal Press, 2007.

Wade, Lisa. “American Men’s Hidden Crisis: ! ey Need More Friends!” Slate . 7 De- cember 2013. www.salon.com/2013/12/08/american_mens_hidden_crisis_they_ need_more_friends/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Wade, Lisa and Myra Marx Ferree. Gender: Ideas, Interactions, Institutions . WW Norton, 2014.

Weil, Elizabeth. “What if It’s (Sort of ) a Boy and (Sort of ) a Girl?” New York Times . 24 September 2006. www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/magazine/24intersexkids.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

“What Is Intersex?” Intersex Society of North America . www.isna.org/faq/what_is_inter- sex. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Williams, Joan, and Rachel Dempsey. What Works for Women at Work: Four Patterns Working Women Need to Know . New York University Press, 2014.

Women’s Ordination Conference. www.womensordination.org/. Accessed 5 July 2017. Yoder, Brian. “Engineering by the Numbers.” American Society for Engineering Edu-

cation. 2011–2012. www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/college- pro" les/15EngineeringbytheNumbersPart1.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Zettel, Jen. “Appleton School Dress Code Draws Debate.” Appleton Post-Crescent . 30 May 2015. www.postcrescent.com/story/news/local/2015/05/31/appleton- school-dress-code-draws-debate/28204303/. Accessed July 5 2017.

Suggested Readings and Videos Alter, Charlotte. “Seeing Sexism From Both Sides: What Trans Men Experience.”

Time. 27 June 2016. http://time.com/4371196/seeing-sexism-from-both-sides- what-trans-men-experience/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Angier, Natalie. Woman: An Intimate Geography . Anchor, 2000. Bornstein, Kate. Gender Outlaw: On Men, Women, and the Rest of Us . Vintage Books,

1995. Brumberg, Joan Jacobs. ! e Body Project: An Intimate History of American Girls . Vintage

Books, 1997. Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity . Routledge, 1990. Crittenden, Ann. ! e Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is Still

the Least Valued . Picador, 2010. Davis, Angela Y. Women, Race, and Class . Vintage Books, 1983.

88 THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF GENDER

Davis, Georgiann. “5 ! ings I Wish You Knew About Intersex People.” UNLV News Center. www.unlv.edu/news/article/5-things-i-wish-you-knew-about-intersex- people#.VhWCfg5OtLo.twitter. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sex/Gender: Biology in a Social World. Routledge, 2012. Grose, Jessica. “Cleaning: ! e Final Feminist Frontier.” New Republic . 19 March 2013.

https://newrepublic.com/article/112693/112693. Accessed 5 July 2017. Halberstam, Judith. Female Masculinity. Duke University Press, 1998. hooks, bell. Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Pluto P, 2000. Hurt, Byron. “Why I Am a Male Feminist.” ! e Root . 16 March 2011. www.theroot.

com/why-i-am-a-male-feminist-1790863150. Accessed 6 July 17. Ingraham, Chrys. White Weddings: Romancing Heterosexuality in Popular Culture . Rout-

ledge, 1999. Katz, Jackson. Tough Guise 2: Violence, Manhood and American Culture . Media Education

Foundation, 2013. Kimmel, Michael. Manhood in America: A Cultural History . 3rd edition. Oxford Univer-

sity Press, 2011. Kli$ , Sarah, and Soo Oh. “Why Aren’t ! ere More Women in Congress?” Vox . 4 Novem-

ber 2016. www.vox.com/a/women-in-congress. Accessed 6 July 2017. Lawless, Jennifer, and Richard L. Fox. “Girls Just Wanna Not Run: ! e Gender Gap in

Young American’s Political Ambition.” March 2013. Women and Politics Institute. www.american.edu/spa/wpi/upload/Girls-Just-Wanna-Not-Run_Policy-Report. pdf. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Mi' in, Margot. Bodies of Subversion: A Secret History of Women and Tattoo . 3rd edition. powerHouse Books, 2013.

Moss-Racusin, Corrine, John F. Dovidio, Victoria L. Brescoll, Mark J. Graham, and Jo Handelsman. “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students.” PNAS , vol. 109, no. 41, pp. 16474–16479.

Stolakis, Kristine. Where We Stand . Video 2016. http://kristinestolakis.com/portfolio- item/where-we-stand/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

! omas, Katie. “Born on Sideline, Cheering Clamors to be a Sport.” New York Times . 22 May 2011.

“What It’s Like to Be Intersex.” BuzzFeedYellow. 28 March 2015. www.youtube.com/ watch?v=cAUDKEI4QKI. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Yogachandra, Natascha. “Teaching Positive Masculinity.” ! e Atlantic . 14 May 2014. www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/05/becoming-men-teaching-opositive- masculinity/361739/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Zhou, Li. “! e Sexism of School Dress Codes.” ! e Atlantic . 20 October 2015. www. theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/10/school-dress-codes-are-problem atic/410962/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

89

3 Privilege and Oppression

Figure 3.1 Kathrine Switzer runs the Boston Marathon in 1967 Source: Getty Images/Boston Globe

90 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

Opening Illustration In 1967, the idea of women participating in a long-distance race as gruel- ing as the Boston Marathon was so farfetched that no o! cial document stated that women were prohibited. Kathrine Switzer, a 19-year old Syracuse student, loved running and had been training with her coach Arnie Briggs to do long-distance races; she even completed a 30-miler to prepare herself to compete in the " agship race in the United States. Reg- istering as K. V. Switzer, Kathrine started the race with Briggs and her boyfriend, Tom Miller. Two miles in, race o! cials attempted to eject her from the race, with race director Jock Semple lunging at her, attempting to pull her from the course and tear o# her race number (see Figure 3.1). Miller and Briggs de" ected Semple, allowing Kathrine to $ nish the 26.2 mile race in a respectable 4 hours and 20 minutes. % e experience was a life-changing one for Switzer, as her experience inspired her to become a lifelong advocate for equal opportunity for women in athletics and beyond (Butler). More broadly, Switzer’s historic run helped propel a sea change in women’s sports, marked in 1972 by women’s o! cial inclusion in the Boston Marathon and the passage of Title IX legislation, which prohibited discrimination in education, including athletic programs. Change came a bit more slowly to the Olympics, however; it was not until 1984 that the women’s marathon was $ rst included as an event.

We open the chapter with this story because it illustrates the chapter’s threshold concepts, privilege and oppression, particularly institutional structures that shape our individual experiences, and how activism, agency, and advocacy—as well as the action of feminist allies—can challenge and ultimately change those structures. As you read this chapter, consider how the key concepts outlined are at work in Switzer’s historical action as part of completing the end of chapter Application Exercise.

A feminist stance posits that systems of privilege and oppression pro- foundly shape individual lives. % ese systems play out via ideology and societal institutions and are internalized by individuals.

Why a ! reshold Concept? Now that you have started to develop an understanding of the concept of a socially constructed sex/gender system, the next step is to broaden our inquiry, or widen our lens, to use a visual metaphor. Imagine a $ lm that

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 91

opens with a close-up shot and then quickly pans out to show the viewer the bigger picture. % at’s precisely the move we’ll be making in this chapter. Although we began this textbook by focusing on the power dynamics that are at play in the gender system, when we widen our lens we are able to see that similar dynamics structure many other systems of di# erence and inequal- ity. Sexism, the system of oppression and privilege based in gender, is but one type of oppression. What’s more, these additional structures of oppres- sion and privilege are interconnected and mutually reinforcing (a point that will be developed more fully in Chapter 4 on intersectionality).

De" nitions Oppression % e concepts of privilege and oppression provide a fundamental frame- work for understanding how power operates in society. % is framework helps explain people’s experiences in the world, and it provides us with tools to name and describe our social location. Oppression can be de$ ned as prejudice and discrimination directed toward a group and perpetu- ated by the ideologies and practices of multiple social institutions. A number of scholars and activists have explored the ways of think- ing and the mechanisms through which these systems are created and perpetuated. For example, legal scholar Mari Matsuda notes that “[a]ll forms of oppression involve taking a trait X, which often carries with it a cultural meaning, and using X to make some group the ‘other’ and to reduce their entitlements and power.” % is terminology of privi- lege and oppression, then, gives us the tools to name and describe not just sexism but the whole “-ism family,” as Gloria Yamato calls it; for example, racism , classism , heterosexism , and ableism .

Type of Oppression Corresponding Type of Privilege Racism Sexism Classism Heterosexism/homophobia Ableism Cissexism/transphobia

White privilege Male privilege Middle-class privilege Heterosexual privilege Able-bodied privilege Cisgender privilege

92 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

Within each system of privilege and oppression, we can see that there is a dominant group and a marginalized group, one group who is con- sidered to be the norm, with their counterpart being the “other.” Audre Lorde calls it a mythical norm , “usually de$ ned as white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, christian, and $ nancially secure,” and goes on to argue that “[i]t is with this mythical norm that the trappings of power reside within this society” (116). % ose who are outside the mythical norm in one or more ways are seen as lesser as a result of being judged in relation to it. As discussed in Chapter 2, masculinity is the default norm in our culture, and it is valued more highly than femininity. % e same can be said for being able-bodied, young, white, and so forth. Audre Lorde argues that

we have all been programmed to respond to the human dif- ferences between us with fear and loathing and to handle that di# erence in one of three ways: ignore it, and if that is not pos- sible, copy it if we think it is dominant, or destroy it if we think it is subordinate.

(115)

As we will discuss in this chapter, idealization of the mythical norm manifests in many ways, both material and ideological.

In addition to the scholarship that has explored the ways of thinking that create and perpetuate systems of privilege and oppression, many scholars have also explored in depth how these systems manifest, that is, what forms they take. Oppression can take cultural and symbolic forms (discussed in the Ideologies section), such as images of beauty and suc- cess, and material forms (discussed in the Institutions section), such as structured forms of failure that disproportionately impact some groups more than others.

For members of marginalized groups, as Marilyn Frye notes, the experience is

that the living of one’s life is con$ ned and shaped by forces and barriers which are not accidental or occasional and hence avoid- able, but are systematically related to each other in such a way as

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 93

to catch one between and among them and restrict or penalize motion in any direction.

(43)

Labeling one’s experience with oppression, framed through the “wide lens” that we described previously, means using the sociological imagi- nation discussed in Chapter 2, and situating one’s experience within a broader framework; often, this means revising a personal understanding of successes, failures, and circumstances from narratives of individual action and personal will to a paradigm that considers how those experi- ences $ t in with social, material, and economic forces. In order to fully understand the concept of oppression, we have to be willing to think on a “macro level,” which is not particularly easy to do. In our experiences of talking about and teaching about this concept (as well as the concept of privilege, discussed below), we have found that some misconceptions and misunderstandings crop up over and over again. We detail a few of them in this chapter.

Misconception Alert Racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression happen only on an individ- ual level. One of the most challenging concepts to understand in many sociologically based disciplines and in Women’s and Gender Studies speci$ cally are the di# erences between what feminist scholar Beverly Daniel Tatum identi$ es as bigotry, prejudice, and racism. It’s impor- tant to distinguish between these three ideas, because whereas the $ rst two happen on a practical and potentially individual level, the last is structural and systemic. As with patriarchy, racism is not the product or conduct of an individual person but what Tatum de$ nes as “a sys- tem involving cultural messages and institutional policies and practices as well as the beliefs and actions of individuals” (362). Some people use “prejudice” and “bigotry” as interchangeable with “racism”; bigotry is a personal belief system that may manifest in acts of meanness or hostility on an individual level. Prejudice is a preconception about an individual on the basis of a racial identity. Racism di# ers from either of these because it involves what David Wellman has called a “system of

94 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

advantage based on race” and means prejudice plus bigotry plus power, or the ability to grant privileges to groups and withhold them from oth- ers (qtd. in Tatum).

% e critical elements di# erentiating oppression from simple prejudice and discrimination are that it is a group phenomenon and that institu- tional power and authority are used to support prejudices and enforce discriminatory behaviors in systematic ways. Everyone is socialized to participate in oppressive practices, either as direct and indirect perpetra- tors or passive bene$ ciaries, or—as with some oppressed peoples—by directing discriminatory behaviors at members of one’s own group.

Internalized Oppression and Horizontal Hostility Institutional and ideological manifestations of privilege and oppression are internalized by members of both dominant and marginalized groups. In other words, it is often the case that members of marginalized groups come to internalize the dominant group’s characterizations of them as lesser and inferior. % is phenomenon is called internalized oppression , and can be seen as a marker of the “success” of the dominant group’s use of ideology. For example, when working-class and poor people internal- ize classism, they come to believe that their class position is deserved, that their failure to succeed economically is the result of their failure to work hard enough and exert enough e# ort to achieve class mobility. Gay men and lesbians internalize heterosexism if they accept the belief that they are un$ t to parent or are undeserving of protection from dis- crimination. Women internalize sexism if they come to believe that they are less capable in mathematics and the natural sciences.

A related concept is that of horizontal hostility , introduced in Chapter 2, whereby members of marginalized groups police each other’s behav- ior and/or appearance. Horizontal hostility happens when a member of a marginalized group identi$ es with the values of the dominant group. % e phenomenon of women slut shaming other women is an example of horizontal hostility, as it entails women internalizing the sexual double standard, and monitoring and casting judgment on other women’s appearance and behaviors. “Respectability politics,” or the politics of respectability, is a term used to describe horizontal hostility and

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 95

internalized oppression in a racial context. Members of marginalized racial groups who engage in respectability politics police the language, behavior, and appearance of other members of their same group, out of the belief that conforming to norms of the dominant group is a key component of combating racial oppression.

Oppression is internalized by individuals, then, and as such, has a psychological dimension that must be addressed when working to dis- mantle it. As Audre Lorde writes,

[f ]or we have, built into all of us, old blueprints of expectation and response, old structures of oppression, and these must be altered at the same time as we alter the living conditions which are a result of those structures .

(123)

Privilege Privilege can be de$ ned as bene$ ts, advantages, and power that accrue to members of a dominant group as a result of the oppression of the marginalized group; individuals and groups may be privileged with- out realizing, recognizing, or even wanting it. A key point here is that oppression and privilege are inextricably linked; they are opposite sides of the same coin. For every type of oppression, a corresponding set of privileges exists. % at is, the " ip side of sexism is male privilege; of racism, white privilege; of heterosexism, heterosexual privilege; of trans- phobia, cisgender privilege, and so forth.

One of the best known essays on the topic of white privilege is Peggy Mcintosh’s “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack,” where she writes: “I was taught to see racism only in individual acts of mean- ness, not in invisible systems conferring dominance on my group” and

I have come to see white privilege as an invisible package of unearned assets that I can count on cashing in each day, but about which I was “meant” to remain oblivious. White privilege is like an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, pass- ports, codebooks, visas, clothes, tools, and blank checks.

96 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

Mcintosh’s essay is now a classic because of its trenchant enumeration of all the (mostly unconscious) assumptions that white people make on a day-to-day basis about their social location and role in the world. Some of the clearest include her notes on “Daily E# ects of White Privilege”:

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about “civiliza- tion,” I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materi- als that testify to the existence of their race.

13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of $ nancial reliability.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children’s teachers and employ- ers will tolerate them if they $ t school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others’ attitudes toward their race.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group. 22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons

of color who constitute the world’s majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

25. If a tra! c cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven’t been singled out because of my race.

34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.

46. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in “" esh” color and have them more or less match my skin.

What Mcintosh’s ideas call attention to are the speci$ c ways that privilege operates in daily life. She argues that, although whites may have experiences that feel like discrimination, those experiences are generally not attributable to their racial identity. Further, McIntosh’s examples show individual experience within the context of larger

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 97

structures and institutions: law enforcement, government agencies, educational institutions, and so forth.

% e Black Lives Matter movement was created in 2012 by a group of activists in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting of African American teenager Trayvon Martin. Subsequent police shootings or deaths of African American people while in police custody strengthened the movement, and unrest in Ferguson, MO in August of 2014 after teenager Michael Brown was shot by a white police o! cer brought the movement into greater public visibility. % e online and media discourse around the #blacklivesmatter hashtag and the subsequent “counter-hashtags,” #alllivesmatter and #bluelivesmat- ter, shows the tension that emerges around the recognition of privilege and oppression, particularly how both are woven into individual experi- ence of institutions like law enforcement and the justice system. In this instance, a documented pattern of police militarization, racial pro$ ling, systematic racism, and questions about the use of force in encounters with people of color are clearly interrelated with the power and social authority of police. % e experiences of people of color as they interact with police are di# erently in" ected by systemic racism than whites; the #alllivesmatter hashtag re" ects white privilege in that it fails to account for the documented violence and brutality disproportionately experi- enced by people of color in the justice system.

Many writers and activists have been inspired by Mcintosh’s list to generate similar lists to name other types of privilege; this strategy of explicitly enumerating instances of privilege continues to be powerful in raising awareness and provoking re" ection among members of the group who experience it. % ere are many lists that explore able-bodied privileges and cisgender privileges, for example. Interestingly, a point of con" uence on these lists is around the issue of bathroom access. Sam Dylan Finch’s list, published on the Everyday Feminism website, includes the following cisgender privilege: “You can be sure that when you go out, you will be able to $ nd a restroom or locker room that corre- sponds with your gender identity”; another list, which uses $ rst person perspective, asserts, “I do not have to worry about whether I will be able to $ nd a bathroom to use or whether I will be safe changing in a locker room” (“Daily E# ects”). Many lists of able-bodied privilege mention

98 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

that able-bodied people don’t have to give thought to how and where they can $ nd a restroom that accommodates their needs. More gener- ally, the experience of being able-bodied is one of not having to give thought to how one will enter, exit, and navigate through public build- ings, including opening and closing doors, operating light switches, moving through hallways and around corners, etc. If you would like to explore issues of accessibility on your campus, consider using one of the checklists created to gauge public facilities’ compliance with the Ameri- cans with Disabilities Act. % e suggested readings section at the end of the chapter includes several of these lists and checklists; we recommend exploring a variety of them.

Antiracist activist Tim Wise has used his own experience to illustrate the concept of white, male privilege. Wise argues that

to be white [in the US] not only means that one will typically inherit certain advantages from the past but also means that one will continue to reap the bene$ ts of ongoing racial privilege, which itself is the " ipside of discrimination against persons of color.

(xi)

Here he details the historical and legal circumstances of his family that ultimately allowed him, as a white man, to bene$ t from those injus- tices and advance socially and educationally. For example, as the child of a middle-income household with relatively modest standardized test scores, Wise found himself a not particularly competitive appli- cant to the selective Tulane University. Wise traces back his mother’s ability (even as a woman who had never owned a piece of property) to take out a loan to help him pay tuition, with his grandmother as a cosigner. His grandmother also had never worked outside the home, and her ability to cosign was inextricably linked to her marriage to a white man whose $ nancial fortunes rested on his racial whiteness— working in the military and government in an era when people of color were systematically denied such opportunities, and buying a house in a neighborhood where, due to a lack of legal structures to prevent hous- ing discrimination, people of color did not live (Wise 12–13). As Wise concludes,

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 99

[a]lthough not every white person’s story is the same as mine, the simple truth is that any white person born before 1964, at least, was legally elevated above any person of color, and as such received directly the privileges, the head start, the advantages of whiteness as a matter of course.

(13)

Learning Roadblock Defensiveness and denial of privilege : Research on learning has shown that a learner’s existing understanding strongly in" uences how that learner absorbs new information. % e use of “privilege” in this discipline-speci$ c context requires some rethinking of the common- sense use of the term “privilege,” or the way we refer to it in everyday life. Most frequently, we think of a privilege as something like a “gift” or “honor,” an opportunity of some kind. What di# erentiates privilege as a kind of term used in Women’s and Gender Studies is the notion that privilege refers not just to individual opportunity but to structured and social opportunities , particularly those that are systematically granted on the basis of a social category of identity rather than merit or individual will and that become woven into the fabric of institutions. Examinations of structural forms of privilege seek to help people situate themselves within these larger contexts and cultivate self and cultural awareness of how privilege and oppression operate, as well as strategies for challeng- ing them.

But it’s not just that our commonsense understanding of privilege gets in the way of grasping how we use that term here. Another more fundamental kind of misunderstanding can come from the fact that this framework of privilege and oppression runs counter to the val- ues and assumptions of many people in our culture. Several examples illustrate this point. At Delavan-Darien High School in Wisconsin, a parent complained about a teacher’s use of materials on white privi- lege in an “American Diversity” course. After looking at the course materials, which drew on the work of Tim Wise and Peggy McIntosh, the parent drew the conclusion that the materials were divisive, and that they had the intention of inducing “white guilt.” It seems clear

100 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

that the parent rejected the overall premise that society is structured into systems of oppression and privilege, and she was quoted as saying that, in her understanding of them, the course materials were saying, “If you’re white, you’re oppressing. If you’re non white, you’ve been a victim” (Starnes). % e parent seems to have been thinking only in individual terms, as opposed to structural, macro-level terms. Michael Kimmel, a sociologist who has written extensively about privilege, argues that state- ments like these “are as revealing as they are irrelevant.” He notes the strong impulse in our culture to “individualize and personalize processes that are social and structural” (2), and goes on to point out that this type of response is a way to dodge and avoid taking these issues seriously. Such misunderstandings can extend even into the political landscape; for example, a proposed January 2017 bill in Arizona, HB120, called for the prohibition of many courses that the bill interpreted as causing “division, resentment or social justice toward a race, gender, religion, political a! liation, social class or other class of people” (Flaherty), a bill proposed in response to a course called “Whiteness and Race % eory.” A similar case emerged in Wisconsin that same year, where representa- tive Dave Murphy called for state funding rami$ cations to be imposed on the University of Wisconsin–Madison for o# ering a course entitled “% e Problem of Whiteness.”

Learning Roadblock “ If I don’t see it, it must not exist.” One of the biggest barriers many students experience in understanding the “big picture” or structural contexts of privilege and oppression is the temptation to use one’s own experience as a “measuring stick.” For example, it may be hard to grasp the enormity of rates of violence against women if it is an issue that has not touched one’s life personally. Julie Zeilinger calls this the “If I don’t see it, it must not exist” mentality, and she argues that this mentality is often a product of being unaware of our privileges. % e important point to remember here is that although personal experience is a critical source of knowledge in Women’s and Gender Studies, it also has to be measured against other kinds of knowledge that can provide a frame- work within which to place one’s personal experience and compare

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 101

it with the experiences of others. Students who are learning to think, know, and see like Women’s and Gender Studies practitioners learn to position their own experiences and awareness of the world along- side the statistical, demographic, and theoretical knowledge gained by systematic evidence collection by researchers, as well as the varying per- spectives that their classmates and conversation partners can bring to their understanding. What this means is that new students of Women’s and Gender Studies should think about how their own personal experi- ence is re" ective of others’ gendered experiences of the world, and how it departs from others’ experiences.

Institutions In Chapter 2, we introduced the concept of gender socialization. As a part of that discussion, we asked you to consider both where and how we are socialized into our gender, that is, where we learn what it means to be a boy or a girl, a man or a woman, in our society. % ose sites of gender socialization are our society’s institutions, and as we mentioned there, they consist of marriage, family, the educational system, the health care system, religion, mass media, the military, the political system, the legal and criminal justice systems, sports, and the economy. We return to a discussion of institutions in the context of this chapter on oppression and privilege because systems of oppression and privilege are embedded within and are played out through these societal institutions.

In Chapter 2, we focused on how societal institutions are patriarchal in nature; that is, as Allan Johnson explains, male-dominated, male- identi$ ed, male-centered, and obsessed with control, particularly of women. Here we go one step further by stating that (1) societal institu- tions also structure oppression and privilege based on race, class, and sexual identity, as well as other categories of identity; and (2) these sys- tems of oppression and privilege overlap with and reinforce one another. In other words, these systems cannot be understood in isolation from one another.

% e terms “institutions” and “institutional or structural” forms of oppression are used frequently to highlight the way that systems func- tion to grant resources and privileges to some groups and withhold

102 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

them from others. Institutions can be formal, organized structures like law and policy-making groups (the House of Representatives and Sen- ate, the Food and Drug Administration, or the medical profession and its related professional organizations), or they can be less formal but still an agreed-upon way of organizing and reproducing social norms (e.g., mass media and popular culture). In other ways, institutions can have a combination of formal and informal structural elements. For example, “marriage” as an institution is governed by formal laws that dictate who can marry and under what conditions; it is simultaneously shaped by formal religious organizations that grant bene$ ts to certain couples and not others, and that enact doctrine that participants in that faith are expected to comply with in order to remain in good stand- ing. Social norms about marriage are promulgated via other informal institutions such as mass media and other aspects of popular culture (think, for example, of the number of magazines, television shows, and websites that are devoted to wedding culture). % e example of marriage also illustrates the points made in the previous paragraph, in that not only is the institution of marriage historically patriarchal but it is also heterosexist. And in the 21st century, marriage is increasingly becoming a middle-class institution that consolidates and protects the privileges of those with economic means and serves to further marginalize work- ing-class and poor people. % is point will be explored more fully in the Anchoring Topics section below.

Ideologies % e concept of ideology might be one that you have heard before, as academics tend to use it a lot, but you might not really know what it means or why it’s used so much. We are introducing it in the context of this chapter on privilege and oppression, along with institutions, because it is the other primary means or method through which those systems of oppression and privilege manifest and are played out.

Quite simply, ideologies are sets of ideas or beliefs. Just as there are dominant and marginalized groups in society, so there are dominant ideologies. Ideologies always represent the attitudes, interests, and val- ues of a particular group. Lynn Weber de$ nes dominant ideologies as

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 103

“pervasive societal beliefs that re" ect the dominant culture’s vision about what is right and proper. Controlling images (stereotypes) are dominant- culture ideologies about subordinate groups that serve to restrict their options, to constrain them” (117). Legal scholar Mari Matsuda asserts that “[l]anguage, including the language of science, law, rights, necessity, free markets, neutrality, and objectivity can make subordination seem natural and inevitable, justifying material deprivation” (336). What we invite you to do is to develop a heightened awareness of the ways that ideologies operate in culture at large as well as in your own life and thinking. % is involves developing metacognition— or thinking about one’s own thinking or thinking processes. Understanding ideologies means being able to (1) identify patterns of thinking, (2) monitor one’s own thinking for those patterns of belief, and (3) critically re" ect on how one’s ideas and attitudes are shaped by those beliefs.

Health Care Privilege and oppression play out in the institution of health care in the United States, where the amount and quality of health care people have access to is shaped by economic resources or the lack thereof, as well as racism. % e U.S. Department of Health and Human Services O! ce of Minority Health, for example, has documented signi$ cant disparities in the health outcomes of marginalized racial and ethnic groups. % eir action plan to reduce health disparities notes

[i]ndividuals, families and communities that have systemati- cally experienced social and economic disadvantage face greater obstacles to optimal health. Characteristics such as race or eth- nicity, religion, SES, gender, age, mental health, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity, geographic location, or other char- acteristics historically linked to exclusion or discrimination are known to in" uence health status.

(O! ce)

% e report notes that these health disparities are not only about lack of access to care, but about the kind of care that people of color

104 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

receive when seeking it. More speci$ cally, they note that “[r]acial and ethnic minorities are more likely than non-Hispanic Whites to report experiencing poorer quality patient–provider interactions.” % ese patient–provider interactions are often of poor quality because providers may bring stereotypical understandings of patients into their treatment. In other words, ideology also plays a role in shaping people’s experi- ences of the institution of health care. We will return to this topic in Chapter 4.

A related example focuses on gender in health care. While women obtain health care in equal if not greater numbers than men, their experiences may be negatively shaped on a number of levels by gen- der stereotypes. As we discussed in Chapter 2, in a binary sex/gender system, masculinity is associated with the mind and rationality, and femininity with the body and irrationality. % ese characteristics have made their way into gender stereotypes of women as hysterical, with their physical complaints not being taken seriously by their health care practitioner. As Laurie Edwards notes in “% e Gender Gap in Pain,” the Institute of Medicine’s 2011 report “Relieving Pain in America” “found that not only did women appear to su# er more from pain, but that women’s reports of pain were more likely to be dismissed.” Instead, Edwards observes, women’s pain is often characterized as “ ‘emotional,’ ‘psychogenic’ and therefore ‘not real.’ ”

Anchoring Topics through the Lens of Privilege and Oppression Work and Family Two societal institutions through which women experience varying degrees of privilege and oppression are the workplace and the family. For example, workplaces are governed and authorized by a variety of laws, acts, and policies regarding labor, safety, and leave for illness or family obligation. And as discussed in Chapter 2, gendered ideas and images of work and leadership deeply impact women’s experiences of the workplace. Family structure is also subject to laws, acts, or poli- cies, particularly in relation to marriage, and particular family structures may be reinforced, acknowledged, or ignored by those policies and laws. For example, even though the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 105

Obergefell had the e# ect of legalizing same-sex marriage in this coun- try, as of 2017, some state and county courts and vital records o! ces continue to refuse legal recognition to the families of same-sex lesbian couples in the form of parentage orders and birth certi$ cates. Ideology surrounding the family is also especially strong, and many of us have internalized these ideas and images about what constitutes a family and what a “normal” family looks like, as well as how families function in terms of assumed roles and responsibilities.

Among these internalized ideas and images of a “normal” family is that it is nuclear in structure, with a married (heterosexual) couple at its center. % is image, however, is deeply out of touch with reality, as evidenced by data from the 2010 Census, which revealed that married couples now constitute a minority of households (48%). By contrast, in 1950, married couples represented 78 percent of households; this sig- ni$ cant decrease has been attributed to a number of factors, including later ages for $ rst marriage and cohabitation for longer periods before marriage. In addition, while divorce rates have stabilized overall, a growing number of people are choosing not to marry, or not to remarry after getting divorced or being widowed. % ere is a particularly striking change evident among middle-aged Americans. Reporting on a study that appeared in ! e Gerontologist, Rachel Swarns notes that “[a]bout a third of adults ages 46 through 64 were divorced, separated or had never been married in 2010, compared with 13 percent in 1970.”

% ese changes to rates of marriage and family form in the last several decades stand in complex relationship to women’s rates of participation in the paid labor market. In some segments of society, women’s increas- ing participation in the labor market has contributed to delaying the age of $ rst marriage, and sometimes shaped women’s choices around whether to stay married and/or to remarry after divorce. On the " ip side of this is the reality that more and more families rely on women’s earn- ings, whether as the primary or sole income. In 1948, only 17 percent of married mothers were in the paid labor force; as of 2015, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 69.9 percent of all mothers with children under the age of 18 participated in the labor force, a substantial increase over the span of slightly less than 80 years. % e participation rate for married mothers with a spouse present was slightly lower (67.6%) than

106 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

those who were single, divorced, or separated (74.8%). Further, although women were less likely to be in the labor force when their children were not yet of school age, almost two-thirds of women with children under the age of 6 participated in the labor force (64.2%), and even a majority of married women with infants less than 1 year old worked outside the home (57.6%). % e importance of women’s paid work is underscored by the $ nding that, as of 2015, “42% of mothers were sole or primary breadwinners, bringing in at least half of family earnings” (Glynn). One key point, then, is that a majority of women (regardless of marital status) in the U.S. want and/or need to combine childbearing and childrearing with paid work, and their earnings are an indispensable part of their household’s income.

When discussing women’s rates of marriage and participation in paid work (and the relationship between the two), we also must pull back and look at how economic forces shape both. Women’s rates of mar- riage vary widely by economic class in ways that suggest that marriage is itself becoming a marker of class privilege. While rates of marriage are declining across the board, the decline is sharper among people with lower incomes and levels of education. More speci$ cally, the decline in rates of marriage for women is both a cause and a consequence of economic inequality. It is a cause of economic inequality because single women who are heads of household bear the brunt of the gender wage gap even more sharply than do their married heterosexual counterparts. It is a consequence of economic inequality because studies are $ nd- ing that marriage feels increasingly out of reach for women in lower income brackets. % e results of a 2014 Pew Research survey, for exam- ple, reported that “never-married [heterosexual] women place a high premium on $ nding a spouse with a steady job. However, the changes in the labor market have contributed to a shrinking pool of available employed young men.” When faced with a potential spouse who has experienced signi$ cant under- or unemployment, many women choose instead to remain single, out of a fear that, as Stephanie Coontz puts it, “legally hitching yourself to a man who might lose his job or misuse your resources can leave you worse o# than if you stayed single.” % e divorce rate also di# ers quite dramatically by income and education, with rates of divorce signi$ cantly lower for those with more education

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 107

and income. One study cited by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, showed a gap of 20 percentage points in the rates of divorce for those with less than a high school degree (50% divorce rate) and those with a college degree (30% divorce rate). While there are many factors that contribute to the di# erence in divorce rates by income and education, one key factor that increases a couple’s chance of divorce is instability caused by under/unemployment and the resulting $ nancial stresses and worries.

Policy Implications U.S. social policy re" ects the dominant ideology idealizing the het- erosexual two-parent nuclear married family in several key ways that con" ict with the reality of the family lives of most U.S. women. For example, looking at the statistical and demographic realities of women, marriage, and motherhood reveals how misaligned the relationship between family structures and responsibilities is with workplace and public policies, structures that subsequently oppress women—poor women and women of color most of all. % at is to say, in spite of the fact that a majority of women (regardless of marital status) in the U.S. want and/or need to combine childbearing and childrearing with paid work, and their earnings are an indispensable part of their household’s income, our societal institutions and many of our governmental policies have not kept pace with this reality. In some cases this gap or mismatch can be characterized in terms of a time lag; that is, we can expect that our institutions and policies haven’t caught up with the pace of change (but they eventually will), but in other instances the gap or mismatch represents deliberate e# orts to stem the tide of changes to family struc- ture based on the belief that these changes are problematic and even destructive.

Relevant policies are the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Recon- ciliation Act of 1996, and the provision in the A# ordable Care Act of 2010 regarding the rights of breastfeeding workers. An analysis of these policies shows how these realities of family structure and labor force participation by women are misaligned with current public policies that

108 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

support work–life balance, that allow women to fully participate in the workplace, and that promote particular sorts of economic dependence for women while discouraging and stigmatizing others, resulting in privilege for some women and oppression for others.

% e FMLA illustrates how public policy has not kept pace with changes in women’s roles and women’s workforce participation—and the resistance to establishing the policy shows how ideologies can determine material realities. Pregnancy, lactation, and child care are a regular part of many women’s life course, but it wasn’t until 1993 under President Clinton that the United States adopted the FMLA, the $ rst step toward ensuring that women could retain the right to return to their jobs after any leave to accommodate family needs. Although the passage of the FMLA represented a positive $ rst step toward creating policy that would help make workplaces more accommodating of the needs of women workers, this Act has several limitations. First, FMLA provides a good example of something that privileges certain women but does not serve others: workers may only avail themselves of its ben- e$ ts if they have worked a certain number of hours within a year and if they work for an employer with more than 50 employees. % e Act may not protect their right to return to their exact position, only a similar one within that workplace. For professional women who work full time and who have access to a second wage in their household, FMLA may cover their needs. However, FMLA provides only unpaid leave, and unless a speci$ c workplace complements this leave with paid leave, most women who are not partnered with a second wage earner (and even many who are) may not be able to take the full twelve weeks of unpaid leave.

In these regards, the current legislative protection for women lags far behind that of other countries. As the Project on Global Working Families has documented in its report, ! e Work, Family, and Equity Index , of 173 countries studied, 168 o# er guaranteed leave with some associated income in connection with childbirth; 98 countries o# er fourteen weeks or more of paid leave. % e United States o# ers none (Heymann, Earle, and Hayes, see Figure 3.2). For a variety of reasons, it seems unlikely that signi$ cant federal-level paid family leave legislation will be passed in the next few years, though Rep. Rosa DeLauro and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand have proposed what they call the FAMILY Act,

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 109

which stands for the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act. % eir proposed legislation would provide workers with up to twelve weeks of partial income, and would cover workers in all companies no matter their size. In the meantime, a small number of states (California, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New York) have created family and medical leave insurance programs in recent years.

Further, despite overwhelming scienti$ c evidence in support of breastfeeding infants, the United States only minimally supports and protects breastfeeding mothers legislatively. As the Centers for Disease Control reports, mothers are the “fastest-growing segment of the U.S. Labor Force.” With the passage of the 2010 A# ordable Healthcare Act, employers are now required to “provide reasonable break time and a private, non-bathroom place for nursing mothers to express breast milk during the workday, for one year after the child’s birth” (United States Breastfeeding Committee). Although this is a welcome policy, not all workplaces are covered under the law (the law contains an exemption for workplaces with fewer than 50 employees), and there is a long way to go in terms of raising awareness and ensuring compliance. Furthermore, as of 2017, the fate of the A# ordable Care Act is unknown, as Congress and President Trump attempt to repeal it in part or in full.

Additionally, as of 2016, 49 states, as well as the District of Colum- bia and the Virgin Islands, have legislation protecting women’s right

Figure 3.2 Maximum Paid Leave (Maternity & Parental) Available to Mothers in Countries Providing Paid Leave Source: New York Times

110 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

to breastfeed in public, though just twelve have a protective law with an enforcement provision. As we discuss in Chapter 4, breastfeeding support and resources are also particularly tied to social class and the types of work environments that are amenable to promoting a climate friendly for lactating mothers. Women working in salaried, professional positions are more likely to have access to unmonitored breaks and pri- vate working spaces that will allow them to pump or breastfeed. What this means is that these laws and policies o# er protection to women with class privilege, often in stable work environments with greater lev- els of autonomy, whereas other women will be disempowered by their workplaces. Overall, the di! culties many women face when attempting to maintain their supply of breast milk upon returning to work after the birth of a child reveal U.S. society’s continued ambivalence about working mothers. Facing barriers to combining work with parenthood, some women feel pushed out of the workplace. Other women are not in a position to leave the workforce, even if they would like to, but instead may have to stop breastfeeding, because their employer is not accommodating.

A di# erent dimension of ambivalence about combining paid work and mothering can be discovered through a discussion of the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Chil- dren (which provided cash bene$ ts to recipients) with the new program Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Generally referred to as “welfare reform,” the Act made some signi$ cant revisions to sup- port bene$ ts available to recipients, including placing a lifetime limit of 60 months on recipients, mandating work outside the home or work-seeking behaviors, and more stringent consequences for failure to comply with the program requirements.

% e ideological assumptions underpinning welfare reform re" ect the threshold concept of privilege and oppression around gender, class, and race. % ere is a classed double standard; whereas married mothers with class privilege are seen as good mothers for prioritizing family over paid work, poor unmarried mothers, within the rhetoric of welfare reform, are seen as bad mothers for wanting to do the same thing. In truth, poor mothers experience not just a double standard but a double bind, being

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 111

judged bad mothers whether they stay at home or work. Because they are poor, they are often seen, by de$ nition, as un$ t parents.

% e mandate that women seeking TANF funds must look for and $ nd jobs does not account for the individual circumstances and social location of those who are in need of and seek government assistance. For example, many TANF recipients face signi$ cant barriers to employ- ment. As the O! ce of Public A# airs notes, 42 percent of welfare recipients did not have a high school diploma or its equivalent; another one-third had serious health issues; and about one-third did not have recent work experience that would make them employable. Recipients often faced additional challenges to paid employment including young infants at home, language barriers, or care responsibilities for family members/children with disabilities.

Under TANF, poor unmarried mothers are required to seek work, but they also often receive explicit encouragement to marry as a way to lift themselves and their children out of poverty. In her 2008 study of low-income mothers, Marcella Gemelli notes the tension in this approach: “advocating for independence and self-su! ciency through working for wages, yet encouraging marriage seems contradictory” (102). More speci$ cally, PRWORA included “Marriage Promotion” poli- cies and funding—a set of policies and allocated resources dedicated toward promoting marriage, particularly out of concern from social conservatives that providing $ nancial support to poor women created a disincentive to marry. Provisions of the bill supported public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage, the support of high school cur- ricula promoting marriage, premarital education and training, marriage workshops, and divorce reduction programs focused on relationship skills (Dailard). % e privileging of the heteronormative family—and the consequent structural oppression that results from the imposition of one ideological perspective on family con$ guration, particularly on poor women—present clear evidence that race, class, and gender are central in determining social location and status. % e policy changes brought about by PRWORA reinforce the notion that particular forms of dependence—dependence on a male breadwinner—are acceptable forms (and the nuclear family is an ideal to which all families with children should aspire) while re" ecting a prevailing assumption that

112 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

$ nancial dependence on government bene$ ts should be curbed. Policies aimed at marriage promotion also discount the personal autonomy of women with multiple responsibilities by channeling resources into the promotion of an ideological ideal that is based on male dominance and compulsory heterosexuality .

An analysis of a range of marriage promotion programs around the U.S. has shown that they have not worked in promoting marriage or preventing divorce, much less in lifting women out of poverty, in spite of the fact that nearly a billion dollars has been spent on them (Covert). Marriage, then, is not a panacea for poverty, for reasons that have already been touched on in this section. In a 2014 report for the Council on Contemporary Families, Dr. Kristi Williams makes the case that social and economic family supports, rather than the promotion of marriage, are keys to improving the circumstances of single mothers and their children. She cites a study showing the impact of three speci$ c policies on rates of poverty in single parent households: “(1) family allowances (direct payments to parents of dependent children), (2) paid parental leave, and (3) publicly funded childcare for children under age 3.” She continues,

[p]aid parental leave and publicly funded childcare for children under age three appear especially advantageous in reducing pov- erty among single mothers, largely by increasing their employment rates—a primary goal of the 1996 welfare reform legislation. Such policies bene$ t all families and are likely to be more e# ective than marriage promotion in reducing poverty and improving the lives of the growing number of single mothers and their children.

As our discussion above shows, social policies such as these would bene$ t not only single mothers living in poverty, but working- and middle-class women, married and unmarried.

Overall, the institutions of work and family profoundly impact women’s lives. In the arenas of work and family—which have per- haps some of the most signi$ cant impacts on an individual’s quality of life—macro-level and micro-level forms of privilege and oppression intersect at multiple levels. Women’s ability to combine paid labor with

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 113

reproductive labor; the choices they have with regard to partners, their personal $ nances, and their occupational trajectories; and the quality of their health and relationships are shaped by policies a# ecting the work- place at local and national levels.

Language, Images, and Symbols Privilege and oppression manifest in symbolic ways as well as material ways (for example, language and images versus material conditions such as institutions like work and education). % ree key examples illustrate how privilege and oppression play out through language, images, and symbols:

Language, Voice, and Power: “Mansplaining” and “Whitesplaining” One way that privilege and oppression play out in language is through whose words are (and are not) listened to and granted authority. In 2008, author Rebecca Solnit published the piece “Men Explain % ings to Me,” a more cerebral and socially conscious meditation of the phe- nomenon subsequently coined mansplaining . As stated in a “Words We’re Watching” blog post on the Merriam-Webster site, mansplain- ing “occurs when a man talks condescendingly to someone (especially a woman) about something he has incomplete knowledge of, with the mistaken assumption that he knows more about it than the person he’s talking to does.” Use of the term has subsequently gone mainstream. In her short essay, Solnit originally described a dinner party experience where a male guest insisted on describing a new book he had read a review of, summarizing its thesis and holding forth on the topic until being made to realize, only after several interruptions by another party guest, that Solnit herself was the author of the book under discussion. What Solnit ultimately tries to show is that, although for some women mansplaining may be a minor “social misery,” for others she argues, “[a]t the heart of the struggle of feminism to give rape, date rape, marital rape, domestic violence, and workplace sexual harassment legal stand- ing as crimes has been the necessity of making women credible and audible.” % at is, the power dynamic at play in mansplaining illustrates a key aspect of male privilege, which is the assumption of the right to speak, the assumption that one is knowing and has something to say

114 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

worth listening to, and the expectation that one’s words will be listened to. Conversely, the phenomenon of mansplaining reveals the extent to which many women still struggle to be heard. As Solnit explains, mans- plaining is a phenomenon that

keeps women from speaking up and from being heard when they dare; that crushes young women into silence by indicating, the way harassment on the street does, that this is not their world. It trains us in self-doubt and self-limitation just as it exercises men’s unsupported overcon$ dence.

Solnit’s point about the feminist struggle to make violence against women a crime speaks to the di! culty that members of all margin- alized groups have when it comes to being heard when they describe their experiences of oppression. A pernicious manifestation of privilege is the belief that members of dominant groups are the best judges of what does and doesn’t count as oppression. % e term whitesplaining was coined to describe the phenomenon of white people explaining to people of color how they should feel about issues of race and racism, and o# ering their unsolicited judgment about whether those experiences could be considered legitimate examples of racism. A recent example

Figure 3.3 Tweet from Rob Schneider Source: Twitter, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4126906/Rob-Schneider-$ re-MLK-Day-tweet- John-Lewis.html

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 115

made social media headlines when 1980s celebrity Rob Schneider tweeted comments to Georgia congressman John Lewis in response to Lewis’s critiques of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump (Figure 3.3).

Extensive online and media commentary pegged this as an example of whitesplaining because of John Lewis’s role as a close collaborator with Martin Luther King and one member of the group that organized the 1963 Civil Rights March on Washington, a group that included Dr. King.

On a related note, whitesplaining can also entail derailing and tone policing. % e site Everyday Feminism provides a visual de$ nition of this term:

Figure 3.4 De$ nition of Tone Policing Source: http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/12/tone-policing-and-privilege/

% e phrase captures the challenges of dialogue around issues that bear emotional weight for oppressed groups whose lived reality is dismissed

116 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

or made invisible by demands for a particular type of communication preferred by a dominant group. % is is sometimes an unintentional silencing, while in other scenarios it could be viewed as a strategy to shut down public resistance to oppression. For example, as the Black Lives Matter movement gained momentum, the types of public protest that individuals and groups engaged in frequently came under scrutiny. San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick made headlines when he knelt rather than stood with his hand to his heart during the national anthem at professional football games. Other athletes, professional or otherwise, subsequently used this same strategy to register opposition to police violence against people of color. Backlash against this method of protest—as well as the range of protest strategies from marches to sit-ins to other demonstrations—led activists to critique these e# orts to control the conversation and set terms for dialogue in ways that rein- force and derive from race, class, and gender privilege.

Online Presence and Wikipedia As the increasingly ubiquitous source of information for online users, Wikipedia is an important part of the construction of knowledge and popular access to knowledge on the widest range of topics of practically any compendium, print or online. A number of new studies (and sub- sequent activist work) have centered on the gender disparity in the type and quality of contributions and edits made to Wikipedia, as well as the virtual environment experienced by Wikipedia contributors.

Research published by the Association of Computing Machinery and cosponsored by Yahoo showed that women editors of Wikipedia made fewer revisions in numbers to entries but made qualitatively more robust and fuller revisions, even though they make up an overall total of just 18 percent of Wikipedia editors. Other research estimates female contributions at 9–15 percent of editors. Research from the University of Minnesota’s GroupLens Research Lab o# ered three key $ ndings in their 2011 examination of over 110,000 Wikipedia editors: in terms of sheer numbers, just 16 percent of editors identi$ ed as women. % ey observed that women editors were more likely than men to leave or cease editing, particularly when, as newcomers, their edits were challenged or

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 117

“reverted.” In 2014, the Isla Vista, California shooting tragedy became the subject of a social media and Wikipedia battle illustrating this online tension. Shooter Elliot Rodger killed six people, and investiga- tions revealed his self-reported motivation to ful$ ll what he himself called his “war on women” (Covarrubias, Mather, and Stevens). Har- nessing the power of social media in response to the tragedy, women took to Twitter with the hashtag #yesallwomen to call out violence and sexism; this hashtag served as a counterpoint and challenge to the previously existing tag, #notallmen , which was created by men’s rights activists to contradict the e# ort to make visible and to critique sexism and violence. A battle for control over the message around the shooting became visible in the Wikipedia page over how the shooting and sub- sequent social media coverage was presented. One draft of the entry speci$ cally identi$ ed Rodger’s misogyny as his motivation for the shootings, while a counter-edit charged that such claims re" ected “fem- inist propaganda” and “misandry” (Dries). % e Wikipedia entries for “#YesAllWomen” and “Isla Vista Shootings” saw heated disagreement on the discussion page about how this tragic event could be discussed in terms that critiqued male privilege and made women’s oppression visible.

More recently, there have been intense editing con" icts over Gamergate, a term applied to a series of controversies within gaming culture and gaming communities centered on a game created by Zoe Quinn, and subsequent video game publication coverage of the game. Heated online battles—often rooted in misogyny and using tactics like “doxxing”—publicly posting the home addresses and contact informa- tion of individuals as a way of making them vulnerable—culminated in a review at the highest levels of Wikipedia’s organizational review body that banned some editors from making changes to the Wikipedia Gamergate entry. Feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian faced similar online harassment after producing a series of YouTube videos called “Tropes vs. Women in Video Games” which critically analyzed depic- tions of women in video games—for example the “damsel in distress,” “women as background decoration,” and “the lady sidekick”; partway through the series debut she received death threats and had to vacate her home.

118 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

A second area of investigation concluded that topics traditionally of greater interest to women received less attention than those that have been historically of interest to men. For example, discussions of $ lms aimed at female audiences were shorter or of lower quality than those with primarily male audiences, leading researchers to conclude “Wikipedia seems to be growing in a way that is biased toward topics of interest to males” (Zurn).

Finally, in terms of the community and culture of Wikipedia editing, the researchers observed, in con" icts among editors, entries by women were more likely to be “undone” than those of men, and female edi- tors were more likely than male editors to be “inde$ nitely blocked.” Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation, explains in her blog that women’s contributions to Wikipedia are inhibited or dis- couraged for a variety of reasons, ranging from hostile editing tactics (for example, editing wars over the di# erence between identifying a rape scene in a $ lm as a “sex scene” and meeting the standards of “neutrality”), to the unfriendly interface, to men’s greater level of self-con$ dence and willingness to speak with authority, to the con" ict-heavy culture. % e “Gender Gap Manifesto” appears on the Wikimedia Foundation and aims to “foster an environment where people can express their thoughts, feelings, and solutions regarding the gender gap on Wikipedia. % e goal is to collaboratively $ nd solutions to improve the presence of women on Wikipedia and its sister projects.”

As part of actualizing these goals, several initiatives have emerged. For example, the FembotCollective hosts annual “Edit-A-% ons” at the o! ces of Ms. Magazine to generate content that will narrow the gender gap. Large-scale e# orts such as the partnership between the Wikipedia Edu- cation Program and the National Women’s Studies Association support Wikipedia article content creation, expansion, or revision by integrat- ing it with teaching and learning in the college classroom. Instructional modules and support for instructors is housed at the NWSA Wikipe- dia Initiative website. % is kind of activism is sometimes referred to as crowdsourcing . % rough these strategies, contributors from a variety of positions are aiming to change the culture of online contributions to Wikipedia to make it a more welcoming space for women to contrib- ute and to challenge an online culture that is exclusionary, adversarial,

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 119

or belittling. In this way, privilege and oppression are demonstrated by the ways that women’s voices are more systematically closed o# whereas men’s voices are dominant, whereas the e# orts to correct the situation show how marginalized groups resist their oppression.

Marked vs. Unmarked in Language In the early days of second-wave feminism, much attention was paid to the ways in which sexism was embedded in language. % is feminist critique of language took many forms, including a critique of the default use of masculine pronouns in English and the default use of masculine gendered occupational titles like “mailman,” “$ reman,” “chairman,” and “congressman.” While these critiques resulted in widespread change, it is also clear that there are signi$ cant ways in which oppression and privilege continue to play out in language.

One of the markers of privilege is invisibility, and one of the ways this invisibility manifests is through identity terms and labels. In other words, dominant groups that are a part of the mythical norm have the privi- lege of being unmarked and unremarkable because of their presumed neutrality and normality. To return to the term transgender that was introduced in Chapter 2, for example, current usage of the term refers to people whose gender identity is at odds with their birth-assigned gen- der, but until very recently there was no term to describe people whose gender identity is consistent with their birth-assigned gender. % e term cisgender was coined to $ ll this vacuum, and arguably to draw attention to, and make visible, the privilege of the dominant group. In Transgender History , Susan Stryker explains that the term cisgendered “names the usually unstated assumption of nontransgender status contained in the words ‘man’ and ‘woman’ ” (22). Another example comes from politicized groups within the autism community; they have coined the term neuro- typical to describe people who are not on the autism spectrum. To be in the unmarked group is to be considered the default norm.

A slight variation on this point comes from considering when we do and don’t attach quali$ ers to our descriptions of and references to people and institutions; for example, it is still fairly common practice to specify race only when referring to a person of color, to specify gender

120 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

when referring to women, to specify sexual identity when referring to someone who is gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and so forth. As Gloria Steinem wryly points out, “adjectives are mostly required of the less powerful. . . . As has been true forever, the person with the power takes the noun— and the norm—while the less powerful requires an adjective.” Similarly, marriage is frequently modi$ ed with the word “gay” when referring to same-sex couples. As GLAAD’s “Ally’s Guide to Terminology” points out, however, “[j]ust as it would be inappropriate to call the marriage of two older adults ‘elder marriage,’ it is inappropriate to call the marriage of a same-sex couple ‘gay marriage’ or ‘same-sex marriage.’ Simply talk

Figure 3.5 Marked and Unmarked T-Ball Sets Source: Image, Jane George

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 121

about marriage instead.” % e argument here is that marriage is mar- riage regardless of the sex of the couple. To do otherwise, whether with regard to people or institutions, is to reinforce the mythical norm and the notion that those outside the mythical norm are both “other” and lesser-than.

Contributors to the blog Sociological Images have documented this phenomenon of marked and unmarked language as it plays out in public signage, as well as in product packaging and products themselves; new examples of this phenomenon continue to be added to the Pinterest site as they are discovered. For example, one posted photo shows an end-of-aisle sign in the health and beauty section of a big box store that describes what customers will $ nd in that aisle; it lists “Deodorant” and “Women’s Deodorant.” Figure 3.5 shows an example of this phe- nomenon in children’s toy packaging. In the examples they document, maleness is an unmarked, invisible category, and only girls/women have a gender.

% is illustrates how the mythical norm and unearned privilege mani- fest in language, although the example about the coinage of new terms to name dominant groups that are a part of the mythical norm shows that language can also be harnessed to bring previously invisible privi- lege to light.

Bodies % e threshold concept of privilege and oppression (as well as the social construction of gender) is illustrated through the operation of rape culture , which Lynn Phillips de$ nes as “a culture in which dominant cultural ideologies, media images, social practices, and societal institu- tions support and condone sexual abuse by normalizing, trivializing and eroticizing violence against women and blaming victims for their own abuse” (Kacmarek and Ge# re). % e term was coined and is used to neatly capture and describe the fact that sexual violence is socially toler- ated and woven into the fabric of our society. Phillips’ de$ nition echoes the overall focus in this chapter of asserting that privilege and oppres- sion play out through institutions and ideology; examples of both will be explored in this section.

122 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

It is also important to note in this context that rape culture is an aspect of multiple forms of oppression, not just or only sexism. Put slightly di# erently, violence, or the threat of violence, is a mechanism that helps maintain many types of oppression, including sexism, but also racism, heterosexism, and transphobia, to name a few. Given that reality, queer men, trans and non-binary people, and men and women of color all experience high rates of violence, and often fear for their safety and security. Chapter 4, which focuses on the threshold concept of intersectionality, will delve more deeply into how and why systems of oppression intersect.

Rates of violence in the U.S. (both intimate partner violence and sexual violence) are consistent with the existence of a rape culture. Data from the CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey shows that nearly 1 in 5 (18.3%) women reported experiencing rape at some time in their lives. % is survey data is further broken out by race and ethnicity, and reveals that many groups of women of color experi- ence violence at even higher rates. For example, in a survey of 2,000 Native American and Alaskan Native women, 56 percent have experi- enced sexual violence. Transgender people, especially trans women, also experience signi$ cantly higher rates of sexual violence; according to the O! ce for Victims of Crime, one in two transgender people are sexually abused or assaulted at some point in their lives.

In a rape culture, sexual violence is normalized, and when perpe- trated by members of the dominant group, their behavior is more often than not excused and minimized and/or made to seem inevitable. % e normalization of sexual violence among young girls and women that is a characteristic of rape culture was documented by sociologist Heather Hlavka in a 2014 research study that concluded that many young women view sexual violence and accompanying behaviors such as objecti$ ca- tion, abuse, and harassment by boys and men as a normal part of daily life. One young woman quoted in the study says, of young men’s sexu- ally aggressive behaviors, “It just happens” and, “% ey’re boys—that’s what they do” (344). % e study focused on explaining why few girls and women report sexual violence, o# ering “normalization” as one explana- tion, as well as the lack of con$ dence young women have in authority and the lack of support from other girls and women. % e “naturalization”

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 123

of violent masculinity also played a role. % e lack of support from other girls and women is a good example of how oppression is internalized.

% e lack of con$ dence in authority $ gures (including the police and courts) documented in Hlavka’s study is often warranted, as seen in the high-pro$ le rape case of Brock Turner, who was convicted in 2016 of three felony charges: intent to commit rape, sexual penetration with a foreign object of an intoxicated person, and sexual penetration with a foreign object of an unconscious person. In spite of the jury $ nding him guilty on all three counts, judge Aaron Persky issued what many considered to be an extremely lenient sentence of only six months in county jail (he was released after three months). Prosecutors had rec- ommended that he serve six years. Persky was seen as diminishing or downplaying Turner’s culpability in the crimes, and many argued that Turner’s privileged status as an a' uent, white male athlete factored into Persky’s decision. Indeed, in his sentencing decision, Persky noted that a longer sentence would have “a severe impact” and “adverse col- lateral consequences” on Turner. Public outrage was further fueled by Turner’s father’s statement, in which he argued for leniency in sentenc- ing, that his son had “paid a steep price” for “20 minutes of action.” % e Brock Turner rape case illustrates how privilege and oppression manifest through societal institutions, and both the judge’s decision and Turner’s father’s statement constitute evidence that we live in a rape culture.

Rape culture is also often perpetuated through how news media (another example of a societal institution) choose to write about and frame their reporting of sexual assault cases. Analysis of news cover- age of the outcome of the 2012 Steubenville rape case, in which two young men were convicted of assaulting a young woman, revealed that many media outlets framed the case in a way that engaged in victim- blaming. As Annie-Rose Strasser and Tara Culp-Ressler write in a piece on ! ink Progress, “[b]y emphasizing the boys’ good grades and bright futures, as well as by describing the victim as ‘drunk’ without clarifying that the defendants were also drinking, many mainstream media outlets became active participants in furthering victim-blaming rape culture.” % eir analysis focuses on news coverage by CNN, ABC News, NBC News, % e Associated Press, USA Today, and Yahoo News.

124 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

An ideological manifestation of rape culture can be seen in the prevalence of rape jokes in American culture. % e $ lm ! e Bro Code: How Contemporary Culture Creates Sexist Men highlights the ubiquity of humorous treatments of rape and sexual assault in popular culture and mass media; one only has to peruse a newspaper, news magazine, or Internet news site to identify many daily examples of rape and sexual assault, including gang rape. As ! e Bro Code notes, 99 percent of rapists are men, and popular shows such as Family Guy and comedians such as Daniel Tosh of the show Tosh routinely take comic approaches to rape that, instead of deconstructing or critiquing rape culture, endorse or embrace it. % e “Rape Joke Supercut” 1 short at the Women’s Media Center highlights the di# erence between these two types of rape jokes: See also Jessica Valenti’s “Anatomy of a Successful Rape Joke” 2 ; and Lindy West’s “How To Make a Rape Joke” 3 for trenchant critiques of this element of rape culture.

Another characteristic of rape culture is that the burden for prevent- ing sexual violence is carried primarily by members of marginalized groups who are expected to limit their behavior, actions, dress, and other aspects of their daily life to try to minimize the likelihood that they will be victimized. % ese internalized and routinized behaviors and habits are referred to as a “rape schedule.” In his essay “Why I Am a Male Feminist,” $ lmmaker Byron Hurt recalls an experience that raised his consciousness about this phenomenon. In a workshop about preventing gender violence, the facilitator

posed a question to all of the men in the room: “Men, what things do you do to protect yourself from being raped or sexually assaulted?” Not one man, including myself, could quickly answer the question. Finally, one man raised his hand and said, “Nothing.”

By contrast, when the facilitator asked the women in the room the same question, nearly all of them raised their hands to o# er examples. Hurt continues, “[t]he women went on for several minutes, until their side of the blackboard was completely $ lled with responses. % e men’s side of the blackboard was blank. I was stunned.” Women’s oppression, then, is illustrated by the mental self-monitoring that many must continually do

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 125

to assess themselves, their surroundings, and their conduct for threats of violence or “gender-based miscommunications,” whereas male privilege is illustrated by the fact that men are typically not expected to monitor themselves or their conduct for safety and security and freedom from sexual violence.

A marker of privilege is the ability not to have to live one’s life accord- ing to a rape schedule; as such, feminist activism focused on eliminating rape culture works to shift responsibility for preventing sexual violence o# of victims and onto potential perpetrators. An alternative model, then, places primary responsibility on members of dominant groups to engage in conduct that creates safe communities, workplaces, and homes, and calls out practices and messages that perpetuate victim-blaming. Feminist activist groups on many college campuses, for example, have criticized the messages directed at women by administrators and campus police that perpetuate the idea that preventing sexual violence is their responsibility alone by only mentioning what they should or shouldn’t do in order to lower their chances of being raped. Many of these groups have then worked with campus leadership to change the messaging in ways that attempt to change the campus culture and climate.

In a rape culture, the bodies of people in marginalized groups are vul- nerable and subject to violation. % e perpetuation of rape culture shores up the privilege of dominant groups and is a mechanism through which marginalized groups experience oppression.

Case Study % e role of both institutions and ideology in maintaining systems of privilege and oppression can be seen through an examination of the bootstraps myth , which is the idea that upward class mobility is not only possible but probable, and that individual will and hard work are the only requisites for moving out of poverty and into the middle class. One of the consequences or implications of this myth is that poor people are then blamed for their continued poverty. Within the logic of the bootstraps myth, if individual will and hard work are the only requisites for moving out of poverty and into the middle class, then poverty can be explained by a lack of will and hard work on the part of poor people.

126 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

% e ideology of upward class mobility has its roots in the long his- tory of the United States as a colony, but was popularized by a series of novels in the 1890s written by Horatio Alger, novels about hard- working boys whose work elevated them from a hardscrabble life to one of success and luxury. So-called Cinderella or rags-to-riches stories continue to be popular and have been continually updated over the past century in such movies as Pretty Woman , Maid in Manhattan , ! e Blind Side , and Slumdog Millionaire. Rags-to-riches stories are also a frequent premise of reality television shows. % ese narratives have the e# ect of reinforcing belief in the possibility of dramatic upward mobility. % is ideology is also buttressed by the language we use to talk (or avoid talk- ing) about class in the United States. Politicians, for example, almost always use the term “middle-class Americans” to refer to the broad mainstream and rarely use class labels that re" ect the reality that a full majority of Americans are in fact working-class. % e bootstraps myth has great explanatory and persuasive power because it builds upon a cul- tural belief in self-determination that resonates with many U.S. residents, the idea that we are each the captain of our own destiny, as it were.

However, data on the realities of social mobility demonstrate that, in fact, movement from one class to a higher or lower one, particularly from the lowest rungs of the American economic ladder to a higher one, is uncommon and di! cult, as data from a New York Times spe- cial feature on social class reveal. In covering the topic of “How Class Works,” the New York Times tracked American families by income quintile (breaking down family income by quintile) and examining how, over time, people in those income brackets moved up or down the “economic ladder.”

As these data illustrate, social class is fairly immutable; that is, the bottom $ fth of the U.S. population in 1988 largely remained in that eco- nomic quintile, with relatively few people born into poverty rising up even a single income quintile. % e same immutability is demonstrated for those in the top income quintile. In sum, the class a person is born into greatly shapes life experiences and has a huge impact over the life course. Gregory Mantsios puts it even more bluntly: “[c]lass standing, and conse- quently life chances, are largely determined at birth,” a reality that frames our discussion of the institutions and the various experiences of them.

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 127

Many questions follow: why is it that the class structure in the United States is fairly static? And how can we account for the persistence of the belief in widespread class mobility given the data that disproves it? % ere are many answers to these questions, but one key factor is the societal institution of education, an institution that reinforces privilege and that some can experience as oppressive. We’ll start by looking at the relationship between baccalaureate degree attainment and social class.

As the chart below shows, income quartile has enormous predictive power in attainment of four-year degrees, and this disparity between fourth-quartile (the poorest) families and $ rst-quartile (the wealthiest) families has grown in the last 40 years. Eighty-two percent of those individuals in the top quartile of the economic spectrum earned a four- year degree, a rate that has doubled in the last four decades to result in the majority of wealthy families producing college graduates; by contrast, the very small percentage of degree-earners from the bottom quartile in 1970 ( just 6.2%) has barely budged, up to 8.3 percent; that is, children raised in wealthy households are ten times as likely to earn a baccalaureate degree—essentially, entrance into stable employment and household security as well as the starting point for most professional occupations—as those from the poorest families (see Figure 3.6).

Further, the profound interrelationships between nearly all measures of academic achievement and socioeconomic status (SES) reveal the

Table 3.1 Economic Mobility in the U.S. Top 20% Of those in the top quintile, 52%

remained there a decade later. Just 5% had dropped to the bottom quintile.

Upper Middle 20%

% ose in the upper middle quintile largely remained there, with 30% in the same income bracket.

Seven percent of the upper middle had dropped to the bottom quintile, while 25% had moved up to the top, and 27% had dropped to the middle.

Bottom 20% Most notably, those who occupied the bottom quintile generally remained there. % e same number of bottom 20 percenters remained poor as top 20 percenters remained rich: 52%.

Similarly, just 5% of bottom quintile earners had reached the top 20%, and a small number had reached the upper middle income bracket: 7.5%.

128 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

deep roots of privilege and oppression, particularly how social strata reproduce and maintain inequality despite the e# orts of individuals to navigate them—or to transform them. As Rebecca Zwick reports in “Is the SAT a Wealth Test?,” the connections between social class and academic achievement are demonstrated by both the major standard- ized tests, the SAT and ACT. When comparing student achievement of the benchmark score for admission to selective colleges, a combined verbal and math score of 1100 (in 2001), students from high socioeco- nomic status (SES) were three and a half times more likely to meet the benchmark (32%) compared with low-SES students (9%). % e average SAT score for low-income students was 887, according to Zwick’s $ nd- ings, while scores steadily increase, with the average score for students

73.3%

Top Income Quartile

!ird Income Quartile

Second Income Quartile

Bottom Income Quartile

40.2%

14.9%

6.2%

1970 0

10

20

30

40

50

Ba ch

elo r’s

De gre

e A tta

inm en

t R ate

(m ov

ing 3-

yea r a

ver ag

e)

60

70

80

90

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

31.5%

17.4%

8.3% 10.9%

Figure 3.6 Estimated Baccalaureate Degree Attainment by Age 24 by Family Income Quartile, from 1970 to 2012 Source: Tom Mortensen, PEO Newsletter

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 129

with family income above $100,000 reaching 1126 (307). Research shows a similar gap on the ACT score, as well as many other standard measures of academic achievement including completion of a rigorous, college-preparation curriculum and high school grades. % is is largely attributable to the di# erential access to resources both at home and in their educational systems including variation in teacher preparation (more teachers with advanced training and credentials teach at schools with lower percentages of students receiving free and reduced lunch). In this way, privilege and oppression in the forms of access to the cultural capital that produce social mobility are structured into a system that reproduces itself with each generation.

% is is not to say that working-class and poverty-class people cannot do well in school, but that their chances of academic success are lower than their more a' uent peers. A 2014 New York Times story highlights the gap between high-income and low-income students’ rates of graduation:

[a]bout a quarter of college freshmen born into the bottom half of the income distribution will manage to collect a bachelor’s degree by age 24, while almost 90 percent of freshmen born into families in the top income quartile will go on to $ nish their degree.

(Tough)

Further, even nonacademic experiences at college can be framed by social class. A 2013 Harvard University book by Armstrong and Hamilton, Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality , traced the ways that university and social structures facilitate upward class mobility for a' uent students whose class background in" uenced their social groups, majors, and extracurricular activities, preserving what the authors call a “pathway to privilege,” while low-income students lacked the bene$ ts provided by college-educated and high-income parents. Jessica Valenti summarizes the intersection of class and gender, empha- sizing from Armstrong and Hamilton’s study that

[r]egardless of the success, class impacted almost every aspect of the college women’s lives—even sexual assault. Female stu- dents who had parents who went to college were able to warn their daughters about the tactics of fraternity predators, and were

130 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

actually less likely to be targeted because, as Armstrong and Hamilton write, ‘insulting a highly ranked woman in a top sorority was akin to a# ronting her whole sorority.’ Lower-income students—especially those women who were perceived as garish— were more likely to be assaulted and less likely to be believed.

(Valenti, “How to End”)

Another important point is that working-class and poverty-class students who do manage to succeed are often pointed to as proof that structural inequality does not exist, which is not only a mistake but cruel when an individual’s success is used to berate those who, because of structural inequality, are unable to follow suit. Neither is our point to diminish or dismiss the success that middle- and upper-class stu- dents achieve through hard work; rather, the point is to acknowledge the enabling conditions that provided a context for those students’ hard work in the $ rst place.

Further complicating the relationship between educational access, social mobility, and identity is the role of race. Disaggregating and pin- pointing racially disparate outcomes in education adds another layer to and understanding of privilege and oppression. Research from the Community College Research Center documents that, four years after graduation, black college graduates have nearly twice the student loan debt as white students ($52,726 vs. $28,006); and black students are more likely to take out student loans and more likely to leave college without completing a degree (Goldrick-Rab, Kelchen, and Houle). Also notable is the increase in enrollment by black students at for-pro$ t uni- versities, which, as the same report notes, “can account for all of the di# erential growth in black graduate school enrollment between 2004 and 2012: at public and private not-for-pro$ t institutions, black stu- dents have remained a roughly constant percentage of the graduate population,” with 28 percent of black students enrolling in a for-pro$ t graduate university program compared with 10 percent of white stu- dents. With traditionally much higher tuition rates, for-pro$ t colleges have been criticized for preying on students to take advantage of a 2005 piece of federal legislation that increased the amount of borrowing allowed for students (Deruy).

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 131

One $ nal point: the class-based structural barriers to educational achievement are buttressed by controlling images of working-class and poverty-class people as dumb and bu# oonish. % ese images and charac- terizations appear both in the news media and in popular culture, from Homer Simpson to MTV’s short-lived reality TV series “Buckwild.” In other words, ideology purports to show that working-class and poverty- class people of all races and ethnicities are poor as a result of both poor choices and lesser innate intelligence.

As the previous illustrations suggest, the bootstraps myth serves an important function in suggesting that certain kinds of privilege and oppression (namely, economic) are irrelevant to social and educational achievement even though there is strong statistical and demographic data to suggest that those social indicators have a great deal of power over who achieves traditional markers of success in the United States.

End of Chapter Elements Evaluating Prior Knowledge 1. Write briefly about how and in what context you have heard the

terms “privilege” and “oppression” before. Generate some examples of how the terms are typically used (for example, in childrearing, in educational contexts, or other settings). Then discuss how your understanding has changed after reading Chapter 3 as well as any lingering questions you have about these key terms.

2. Reflect on how you have, historically, conceptualized or would describe your class background. What aspects of your iden- tity, family context, or life experiences have factored into this conceptualization?

Application Exercise 1. Consider the opening illustration about Kathrine Switzer’s entry in

the Boston Marathon in 1967. In conversation with a partner or in an informal writing activity, think about how the key concepts from this chapter are illustrated by Switzer’s story: a. Privilege b. Oppression

132 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

c. Institutions d. Ideologies

2. Visit the website, the Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal: www.ada.gov/racheck.pdf. Identify a location where you spend significant amounts of time and assess it using the checklist for accessibility.

Skills Assessment 1. Review this bar graph from the Washington Post story “Poor Kids

Who Do Everything Right Don’t Do Better than Rich Kids Who Do Everything Wrong,” with specific attention to socioeconomic and educational privilege and oppression. In what ways do you see chapter concepts demonstrated by the data?

100%

80%

60%

0% Poor College Grads

Pe rce

nt in

E ac

h I nc

om e Q

uin til

e a t A

ge 40

Rich High School Dropouts

20%

20% 14%

30% Top 20%

Is !is What Meritocracy Looks Like?

21% to 40% Bottom 20%

41% to 60% 61% to 80%

35%

16%

5%

21%

26%

17%

16%

40%

Figure 3.7 Poor Kids Who Do Everything Right Don’t Do Better than Rich Kids Who Do Everything Wrong Source: www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/18/poor-kids-who-do-everything-right- dont-do-better-than-rich-kids-who-do-everything-wrong/?utm_term=.7e6326328ed0

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 133

3. Select a term or concept from the chapter that seems “muddy” to you. With a partner, talk through the muddiness. What is creating a learning block? Why is it difficult? What would clarify it for you? Use a strategy called a “difficulty log” to map out the parts of the idea that are challenging you, including background knowledge you wish you had, challenging or confusing vocabulary, unclear relation- ships to other chapter concepts or other chapters, or unfamiliarity from your experience. As an additional activity, once you’ve had a chance to work through a muddy/difficult concept, try your hand at writing a “Misconception Alert” or “Learning Roadblock” like those

2. Using concepts from Chapter 2 and Chapter 3, discuss how access to and support for participation in athletics demonstrates the social construction of gender as well as privilege and oppression.

Figure 3.8 You % row Like a Girl Source: https://medium.com/matt-bors/you-throw-like-a-girl-c5cc1d098b6c

134 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

featured in the chapter in order to spell out (a) what the learning challenge is and (b) how other students can overcome it.

Discussion Questions 1. Which concepts from this chapter are the most challenging for you

and why? Which seem intuitively easy to grasp? 2. With particular attention to the case study on the bootstraps myth,

consider why this concept has such explanatory power, specifi- cally within the context of the United States. Are there examples not provided in the chapter that you can think of that reflect this ideology?

3. Building on your understanding of rape culture from the Bodies Anchoring Topics section, think about how and where you see examples of rape culture around you. Conversely, how and where have you seen rape culture being challenged?

Writing Prompts 1. Navigate to Harvard University’s Implicit Bias Test (https://implicit.

harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html) and take one or more of the available tests. Write about your results and include reflection analy- sis of the ways in which the results help you understand concepts from the chapter including privilege, oppression, horizontal hostility, internalized oppression, or others.

2. Select a topic of personal interest to you (a band, recreational activ- ity, intellectual interest, book or TV show) and that you know a lot about. Next, search for related entries on Wikipedia. First, read over the entry and do your own independent assessment of neu- trality standards—is the topic presented in accurate and objective ways? Are there aspects that you believe reflect a specific bias or slant? Second, click on the “Talk” tab at the top of the page. What kinds of discussions are Wikipedia editors having about the infor- mation presented and does it match with your own assessment? In what ways, if any, do you see particular beliefs or perceptions being privileged (or underrepresented, or misrepresented) in the conversation?

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 135

Notes 1 www.womensmediacenter.com/blog/entry/rape-joke-supercut-i-cant-believe-you-

clapped-for-that 2 www.thenation.com/blog/168856/anatomy-successful-rape-joke 3 http://jezebel.com/5925186/how-to-make-a-rape-joke

Works Cited Americans with Disabilities Act. www.ada.gov/racheck.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2017. Armstrong, Elizabeth, and Laura Hamilton. Paying for the Party: How College Maintains

Inequality . Harvard University Press, 2013. ! e Bro Code: How Contemporary Culture Creates Sexist Men. Media Education Founda-

tion. 2011. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “News Release: Employment Characteristics of Families—

2015.” 6 March 2017. www.bls.gov/news.release/famee.htm. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Butler, Sarah Lorge. “How Kathrine Switzer Paved the Way.” ESPN . 12 April 2012. www.espn.com/espnw/news-commentary/article/7803502/2012-boston-mara thon-how-kathrine-switzer-paved-way-female-runners. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Findings from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2010–2012 State Report.” www.cdc.gov/vio lenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2017.

Coontz, Stephanie. “Why Gender Equality Stalled.” New York Times . 16 February 2013. Covarrubias, Amanda, Kate Mather, and Matt Stevens. “Isla Vista Shooting Suspect

Targeted Sorority, Neighbors, Strangers.” Los Angeles Times . 24 May 2014. Covert, Bryce. “Nearly a Billion Dollars Spent on Marriage Promotion Programs Have

Achieved Next to Nothing.” ! ink Progress . https://thinkprogress.org/nearly-a- billion-dollars-spent-on-marriage-promotion-programs-have-achieved-next-to- nothing-e675f0d9b6. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Dailard, Cynthia. “Reproductive Health Advocates and Marriage Promotion: Asserting a Stake in the Debate.” ! e Guttmacher Report on Public Policy , vol. 8, no. 1, 2005. www.guttmacher.org/gpr/2005/02/reproductive-health-advocates-and-marriage- promotion-asserting-stake-debate.

“Daily E# ects of Cisgender Privilege.” University of Texas Gender and Sexuality Center. http://diversity.utexas.edu/genderandsexuality/wp-content/uploads/2016/ 03/Handout-Cisgender-and-Heterosexual-Privilege-2016.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Deruy, Emily. “% e Racial Disparity of the Student-Loan Crisis.” ! e Atlantic . 24 Oc- tober 2016.

Dries, Kate. “% ere’s a Battle Going on over the Wikipedia Page for #YesAllWomen.” Jezebel . 6 June 2014. http://jezebel.com/theres-a-battle-going-on-over-the-wiki pedia-page-for-y-1586704111. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Edwards, Laurie. “% e Gender Gap in Pain.” New York Times . 16 March 2013. Finch, Sam Dylan. “130+ Examples of Cis Privilege in All Areas of Life for You to

Re" ect On and Address.” Everyday Feminism . 29 February 2016. http://everyday feminism.com/2016/02/130-examples-cis-privilege/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

136 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

Flaherty, Colleen. “White Is the Word.” Inside Higher Ed . 18 January 2017. www.inside highered.com/news/2017/01/18/arizona-lawmakers-failed-ban-divisive-college- courses-highlights-new-criticism-white. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Frye, Marilyn. “Oppression.” In ! e Feminist Philosophy Reader . Eds. Alison Bailey and Chris Cuomo. McGraw Hill, 2008, pp. 41–49.

Gardner, Sue. “Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (In % eir Own Words).” Sue Gardner ’ s Blog . 19 February 2011. https://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons- why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia-in-their-own-words/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Gemelli, Marcella. “Understanding the Complexity of Attitudes of Low-Income Single Mothers Toward Work and Family in the Age of Welfare Reform.” Gender Issues, vol. 25, no. 101, 2008, pp. 101–113.

“Gender Gap Manifesto.” 27 March 2011. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_ Gap_Manifesto. Accessed 6 July 2017.

GLAAD. “Ally’s Guide to Terminology.” 2012. www.glaad.org/sites/default/$ les/allys- guide-to-terminology_1.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Glynn, Sarah Jane. “Breadwinning Mothers Are Increasingly the U.S. Norm.” Cen- ter for American Progress. 19 December 2016. www.americanprogress.org/issues/ women/reports/2016/12/19/295203/breadwinning-mothers-are-increasingly- the-u-s-norm/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Goldrick-Rab, Sara, Robert Kelchen, and Jason Houle. “% e Color of Student Debt: Implications of Federal Loan Program Reforms for Black Students and Histori- cally Black Colleges and Universities.” Wisconsin Hope Lab. 2 September 2014. https://news.education.wisc.edu/docs/WebDispenser/news-connections-pdf/ thecolorofstudentdebt-draft.pdf?sfvrsn=4. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Heymann, Jody, Alison Earle, and Je# rey Hayes. ! e Work, Family, and Equity Index: How Does the US Measure Up? % e Project on Global Working Families and the Institute for Health and Social Policy. www.worldpolicycenter.org/sites/default/ files/Work%20Family%20and%20Equity%20Index-How%20does%20the%20 US%20measure%20up-Jan%202007.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Hlavka, Heather. “Normalizing Sexual Violence: Young Women Account for Harass- ment and Abuse.” Gender and Society , vol. 28, no. 3, 2014, pp. 337–358.

“How Class Works.” Interactive Graphic. New York Times . 2005. www.nytimes.com/ packages/html/national/20050515_CLASS_GRAPHIC/index_04.html. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Hurt, Byron. “Why I Am a Male Feminist.” ! e Root . 16 March 2011. www.theroot. com/why-i-am-a-male-feminist-1790863150. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Johnson, Allan. ! e Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy . Temple University Press, 2005.

Kacmarek, Julia, and Elizabeth Ge# re. “Rape Culture Is: Know It When You See It.” Hu" ngton Post Blog . 1 June 2013. www.hu! ngtonpost.com/julia-kacmarek/rape- culture-is_b_3368577.html. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Kimmel, Michael S. “Introduction: Toward a Pedagogy of the Oppressor.” In Privilege: A Reader . Eds. Michael S. Kimmel and Abby Ferber. 1st edition. Westview, 2003, pp. 1–10.

Lorde, Audre. “Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Rede$ ning Di# erence.” In Sister Outsider . Crossing Press, 1984.

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 137

Mantsios, Gregory. “Class in America—2006.” In Race, Class, and Gender in the United States . Ed. Paula Rothenberg. 7th edition. Worth, 2007, pp. 182–197.

Matsuda, Mari. “Beside My Sister, Facing the Enemy: Legal % eory Out of Coalition.” In Feminist ! eory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives . Ed. Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim. 3rd edition. Routledge, 2013, pp. 332–342.

Mcintosh, Peggy. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” 1989. https:// nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. “Mansplaining: Words We’re Watching.” www.merriam- webster.com/words-at-play/mansplaining-de$ nition-history. Accessed 16 March 2017.

Mortensen, Tom. “Estimated Baccalaureate Degree Attainment by Age 24 by Family Income Quartile 1970 to 2012.” Postsecondary Education Opportunity . November 2010.

National Women’s Studies Association. “NWSA Wikipedia Initiative.” www.nwsa.org/ wikiedu. Accessed 6 July 2017.

O’Brien, Matt. “Poor Kids Who Do Everything Right Don’t Do Better % an Rich Kids Who Do Everything Wrong.” ! e Washington Post . 18 October 2014.

O! ce of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. “Disparities.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/foundation- health-measures/Disparities. Accessed 7 July 2017.

O! ce for Victims of Crime. “Responding to Transgender Victims of Sexual Assault.” June 2014. www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Solnit, Rebecca. “Men Explain % ings to Me.” TomDispatch.com . 13 April 2008. Starnes, Todd. “Public School Teaches ‘White Privilege’ Class.” Fox News . 2013. http://

radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/public-school-teaches-white-privilege- class.html. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Steinem, Gloria. “Women Have ‘Chick Flicks.’ What About Men?” New York Times . 2 March 2017.

Strasser, Annie-Rose, and Tara Culp-Ressler. “How the Media Took Sides in the Steu- benville Rape Case.” ! ink Progress . 18 March 2013. https://thinkprogress.org/ how-the-media-took-sides-in-the-steubenville-rape-case-e92589afbadf. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Stryker, Susan. Transgender History . Seal Press, 2008. Sun, Feifei. “What MTV’s Teen Mom Doesn’t Deliver.” Time Magazine . 14 July 2011. Swarns, Rachel. “More Americans Rejecting Marriage in 50s and Beyond.” New York

Times . 1 March 2012. Tatum, Beverly Daniel. “De$ ning Racism: Can We Talk?” Women, Images and Realities:

A Multicultural Anthology . Eds. Amy Kesselman, Lily McNair, and Nancy Schnie- dewind. 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, 2003.

Tough, Paul. “Who Gets to Graduate?” New York Times Magazine . 15 May 2014. United States Breastfeeding Committee. “Existing Laws.” 2013. www.usbreastfeeding.

org/laws. Accessed 6 July 2017. Valenti, Jessica. “How to End the College Class War.” Guardian . 27 May 2014. www.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/how-to-end-college-class-war. Accessed 6 July 2017.

138 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

Weber, Lynn. Understanding Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality. 2nd ed. Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2009.

Williams, Kristi. “Promoting Marriage among Single Mothers: An Ine# ective Weapon in the War on Poverty?” Council on Contemporary Families . 6 January 2014. https://contemporaryfamilies.org/marriage-ine# ective-in-war-on-poverty- report/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Wise, Tim. White Like Me: Re# ections on Race from a Privileged Son . Soft Skull Press, 2005. Yamato, Gloria. “Something about the Subject Makes It Hard to Name.” In Making

Face, Making Soul . Ed. Gloria Anzaldua. Aunt Lute Books, 1990, pp. 25–30. Zeilinger, Julie. A Little F’d Up: Why Feminism is Not a Dirty Word . Seal Press, 2012. Zurn, Rhonda. “University of Minnesota Researchers Reveal Wikipedia Gender Bi-

ases.” 11 August 2011. https://cse.umn.edu/news-release/university-of-minnesota- researchers-reveal-wikipedia-gender-biases/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Zwick, Rebecca. “Is the SAT a Wealth Test?” Phi Delta Kappan , vol. 84, no. 4, 2002, pp. 307–311.

Suggested Readings and Videos “Able-Bodied Privilege Checklist.” MIT School of Architecture and Planning. www.

sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/able_bodied_privilege.pdf. Antin, Judd, et al. “Gender Di# erences in Wikipedia Editing.” Wikisym . October 2011. Aughinbaugh, Alison, Omar Robles, and Hugette Sun. “Marriage and Divorce: Pat-

terns by Gender, Race, and Educational Attainment.” Bureau of Labor Statistics Monthly Labor Review . October 2013.

Braun, Nicole. “Taken-for-Granted Social Class Privileges.” Classism Exposed . Class Action. 19 January 2015. http://www.classism.org/taken-granted-social-class- privileges/.

“Breastfeeding State Laws.” National Conference of State Legislatures. www.ncsl.org/re search/health/breastfeeding-state-laws.aspx#State. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Carbone, June, and Naomi Cahn. “Family Values? Conservative Economics Have Shred- ded Marriage Rates.” Next New Deal: % e Blog of the Roosevelt Institute. 9 August 2011. http://rooseveltinstitute.org/family-values-conservative-economics-have-shred ded-marriage-rates/.

——. Marriage Markets: How Inequality Is Remaking the American Family. Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2014.

Coontz, Stephanie. “Why Gender Equality Stalled.” New York Times . 16 February 2013. Crittenden, Ann. ! e Price of Motherhood: Why the Most Important Job in the World Is the

Least Valued . Holt, 2002. “Daily E# ects of Cisgender Privilege.” University of Texas Gender and Sexuality

Center. http://diversity.utexas.edu/genderandsexuality/wp-content/uploads/2016/ 03/Handout-Cisgender-and-Heterosexual-Privilege-2016.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2017.

Edwards, Laurie. “% e Gender Gap in Pain.” New York Times . 16 March 2013. “Fact Sheet.” National Partnership for Women and Families . February 2017. www.nation

alpartnership.org/research-library/work-family/paid-leave/family-act-fact-sheet. pdf. Accessed 6 July 2017.

PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION 139

“Family Income and Educational Attainment 1970–2009.” Postsecondary Educa- tion Opportunity: Public Policy Analysis of Opportunity for Postsecondary Education . November 2010.

Ferber, Abby, and Michael Kimmel. Privilege: A Reader . 2nd edition. Westview Press, 2010.

Finch, Sam Dylan. “130+ Examples of Cis Privilege in All Areas of Life For You to Re" ect On and Address.” Everyday Feminism . 29 February 2016.

Heldke, Lisa, and Peg O’Connor, eds. Oppression, Privilege, and Resistance: ! eoretical Perspectives on Racism, Sexism, and Heterosexism . McGraw Hill, 2004.

Hess, Amanda. “Are You a Slut? % at Depends. Are You Rich?” Slate.com . 28 May 2014.

Jacobi, Tonja, and Dylan Schweers. “Justice, Interrupted: Gender, Ideology, and Senior- ity on the Supreme Court.” SCOTUSblog . 5 April 2017.

Johnson, Allan. Privilege, Power, and Di$ erence . May$ eld, 2001. Kacmarek, Julia, and Elizabeth Ge# re. “Rape Culture Is: Know It When You See It.”

Hu" ngton Post Blog . 1 June 2013. Konnikova, Maria. “Lean Out: % e Dangers for Women Who Negotiate.” ! e New

Yorker . 10 June 2014. Leistyna, Pepi. Television and Working Class Identity: Intersecting Di$ erences. Palgrave

Macmillan, 2014. McDonough, Katie. “Report: Many Girls View Sexual Assault as Normal Behavior.”

Salon . 14 April 2014. Mcintosh, Peggy. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” Peace and

Freedom Magazine, July/August, 1989, pp. 10–12. Miller, Claire Cain. “% e Motherhood Penalty vs. % e Fatherhood Bonus.” New York

Times . 6 September 2014. O! ce of Justice Programs. U.S. Department of Justice. 26 May 2017. https://ojp.gov/. Peralta, Katherine. “Marriage Gap Widens with Income Inequality.” U.S. News &

World Report . 16 December 2014. Pharr, Suzanne. Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism . Chardon Press, 1997. Ridgway, Shannon. “19 Examples of Ability Privilege.” Everyday Feminism . 5 March

2013. Web. Rooks, Noliwe. “% e Myth of Bootstrapping.” Time Magazine . 7 September 2012. Scott, Judith Clayton, and Jing Li. “Black-White Disparity in Student Loan Debt

More % an Triples After Graduation.” Economics Studies. Brookings Institute. 20 October 2016. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/black-white-disparity- in-student-loan-debt-more-than-triples-after-graduation.html. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Solnit, Rebecca. “A Rape a Minute, A % ousand Corpses a Year.” Mother Jones . 25 Janu- ary 2013.

——. “Men Explain % ings to Me.” GuernicaMag . 20 August 2012. https://www.guerni camag.com/rebecca-solnit-men-explain-things-to-me/. Accessed 20 October 2017.

Tatum, Beverly Daniel. “De$ ning Racism: Can We Talk?” In Women, Images and Re- alities: A Multicultural Anthology . Eds. Amy Kesselman, Lily McNair, and Nancy Schniedewind. 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, 2003.

Unslut . Dir. Emily Lindin. % e Unslut Project, 2015. Film.

140 PRIVILEGE AND OPPRESSION

Urban Institute. “A Decade of Welfare Reform: Facts and Figures.” Urban Institute. 26 July 2006. https://www.urban.org/research/publication/decade-welfare-reform- facts-and-$ gures.

Van Galen, Jane. “Middle Class Privilege.” Education and Class: Exploring the Inter- sections of Social Class, Education, and Identity. 16 May 2008. https://education andclass.com/2008/05/16/middle-class-privilege/.

Wang, Wendy, and Kim Parker. “Record Share of Americans Have Never Married.” Pew Research Center. 24 September 2014. www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/ record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Yamato, Gloria. “Something about the Subject Makes It Hard to Name.” Making Face, Making Soul . Ed. Gloria Anzaldua. Aunt Lute Books, 1990, pp. 25–30.

Zeilinger, Julie. “6 Forms of Ableism We Need to Retire Immediately.” Mic . 7 July 2015. Web.

141

4 Intersectionality

Opening Illustration Discussions of breastfeeding have increasingly been in the public eye for the last several years, in both news stories and social media memes. Part of what has fueled these discussions is the fact that rates of breastfeeding in the U.S. have risen in the last decade, as a result of public health campaigns. Recent news reports tout the increase in mothers breastfeeding their newborns, noting “[m]ore mothers in the United States are breastfeeding their babies, a practice that could potentially save billions in health care costs, the Centers for Disease Control said in a study released on Wednesday” (Abutaleb). Aggregate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show, for example, that

[w]hile 35 percent of babies were breastfed at six months in 2000, that ! gure climbed to 49 percent in 2010, and the 27 percent of

Table 4.1 Percent of Infants Exclusively Breastfed in the Past 7 Days (First Four Rows) Infant age in months

Neonatal 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 12 ALL(n) 3,002 2,546 2,381 2,232 2,178 2,092 2,017 1,942 1,804 1,802 (%) 38.8 38.1 36.0 27.7 14.0 4.3 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Infant Feeding Practices Study II www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/pdf/ifps/data/ifps2_tables_ch3.pdf

142 INTERSECTIONALITY

babies still breastfeeding at 12 months was up from 16 percent over that same decade.

(Abutaleb)

As these rates have increased, however, controversy has arisen in some quarters over whether women should breastfeed in public spaces. Many women have reported facing negative responses, being told that it is somehow inappropriate to breastfeed where others might see, and in other cases, being asked to move into a private space. As we discussed in Chapter 3, almost every state in the U.S. protects women’s right to breastfeed in public, though this has not stopped disapproving indi- viduals from expressing their opinions and attempting to shame women for doing so. Groups of people who believe strongly in women’s right to breastfeed in public have pushed back against these attempts to con- strict that right by engaging in “nurse-ins” and pressuring o" ending businesses to issue apologies and create or clarify their policies regard- ing the accommodation of nursing parents.

But as a public health and social justice issue, discussions of breast- feeding that focus only on gender as a lens will not accurately capture or target the needs of diverse groups of women. A “single-lens” axis under- standing of the data above, for example, might focus exclusively on the average overall percentage of infants who were receiving nutrition exclusively through breast milk, a practice endorsed by major medical and public health organizations as best for mothers and infants; in such an approach, the number under the “neonatal” category would show that about 39 percent of mothers of newborns are exclusively breastfeeding.

However, an intersectional analysis that examines breastfeeding will acknowledge that discussions of gender in relation to race, class, and age will result in a more nuanced picture of infant feeding practices, potential public health initiatives, and breastfeeding activism. As Sy Mukherjee notes, “there is a shifting but stubborn disparity between rich, white women’s breastfeeding rates and those of low-income and minority mothers—disparities that are enshrined through policies in this area that disproportionately hurt the poor.”

An intersectional analysis of breastfeeding asks and attempts to answer the question of why this disparity exists. Mukherjee posits that one major

INTERSECTIONALITY 143

factor that accounts for the disparity can be traced back to where women give birth and the health care they receive in those settings. More spe- ci! cally, many hospitals that serve large numbers of low-income women have experienced budget cuts that have eliminated positions for lacta- tion consultants, trained professionals who help new mothers establish breastfeeding. Mukherjee notes that many of these hospitals are “over- burdened and understa" ed, making it easier for doctors and nurses to hand out formula milk rather than engage in the time-consuming pro- cess of preparing a ! rst-time mom for the challenges of breastfeeding.” Kiran Saluja also notes that women’s experiences in these health care settings also contribute to this stubborn disparity:

[d]isempowerment is pervasive among poor women of color; even when they know why and how they should breastfeed exclusively, they are often unable to advocate for their rights in health care facilities with practices that systematically override the mother’s verbalized desire to breastfeed. # is simultaneously erodes her ability to produce breast milk.

(Geraghty, Saluja, and Merchant 207)

Other factors include how much family and social support a new mother has for nursing; how much ! nancial support and time away from paid labor she has access to; and cultural norms in$ uencing infant feeding decisions.

Knowledge about what causes and perpetuates the disparity should of course be brought to bear on e" orts to eradicate the disparity. Pub- lic health interventions that attempt to increase the number of women who are able to and choose to breastfeed that only consider gender would miss important information about other identity factors that may in$ uence women’s choices and a" ect their ability to breastfeed when they desire to do so. More fundamentally, an intersectional approach to public health initiatives and activism around breastfeed- ing understands breastfeeding as a social justice issue. In other words, increasing rates of breastfeeding for all women entails not only tack- ling the sexism nursing parents face from employers or from strangers in public, but also racism and income inequality. # is is not to say that “nurse-ins” are not a viable form of activism, but rather to say that

144 INTERSECTIONALITY

Table 4.2 Percent of Babies Exclusively Breastfed in Past 7 Days by Infant Age and Selected Demographics

Infant age in months Neonatal 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 12

ALL(n) 3,002 2,546 2,381 2,232 2,178 2,092 2,017 1,942 1,804 1,802 (0/0) 38.8 38.1 36.0 27.7 14.0 4.3 1.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 Age 18–24 22.9 24.3 20.7 15.1 7.1 2.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 25–29 44.3 43.7 40.1 31.0 17.2 6.3 1.7 0.2 0.3 0.0 30–34 44.2 41.3 40.3 30.8 13.7 4.3 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 35+ 41.0 39.4 39.3 30.7 15.5 3.3 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.0

Infant age in months Education HS or less 24.6 24.0 22.4 14.9 7.0 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 Some college

36.5 35.0 32.5 24.7 12.3 4.2 1.0 0.3 0.5 0.0

College graduate

53.5 51.7 48.7 38.6 19.7 6.0 1.2 0.1 0.3 0.0

Income (% of poverty) < 185% 33.5 33.1 32.3 25.3 13.1 4.3 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.0 185– < 350% 41.2 41.5 39.0 31.6 15.2 4.3 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.0 >=350% 44.7 41.6 37.7 26.0 13.6 4.6 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Race White 41.4 39.7 38.2 30.0 14.7 5.1 1.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 Black 13.6 24.5 16.3 8.0 5.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Hispanic 29.7 30.6 25.0 12.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Infant Feeding Practices Study II www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/pdf/ifps/data/ifps2_tables_ch3.pdf

the struggles faced by low-income women and women of color when it comes to breastfeeding di" er from the struggles of white, middle- class women. Chapter 5, Feminist Praxis, will explore some of the organizations and initiatives that are tackling this issue through an intersectional lens.

A feminist stance explores how systems of privilege and oppression intersect.

INTERSECTIONALITY 145

Why a ! reshold Concept? As previous chapters have asserted, in order to understand how indi- vidual social locations are shaped, it’s important to see how systems of privilege and oppression intersect. # is notion of “intersectionality” is at the heart of feminist analysis. As this chapter will explore, di" er- ent groups bene! t from or are disadvantaged by institutional structures, and this chapter will review how overlapping categories of identity pro- foundly shape our experiences within institutions. You should build on the learning you have done to this point about social constructionism and privilege and oppression in order to gain a greater understand- ing of those threshold concepts by applying an intersectional lens to your thinking. Although gender as a category of analysis is useful, it is incomplete without understanding that other categories of iden- tity (race, sexuality, class, age, etc.) are equally as important in gaining accurate knowledge about people’s lives and experiences. As Estelle Freedman asserts in No Turning Back: ! e History of Feminism and the Future of Women , “[f ]eminists must continually criticize two kinds of false universals. We must always ask not only, ‘What about women?’ (what di" erence does gender make?) but also ‘Which women?’ (what di" erence do race, class, or nationality make?)” (8).

De" nitions, Key Terms, and Illustrations We begin here by returning to and expanding on the point that inter- sectionality is at the heart of feminist analysis, or what Patrick Grzanka calls a “leading paradigm” and an “indispensible tool” (xiii). # is fact has a history that is important to recount here, at least brie$ y. Early mod- els of intersectional analyses of race and gender have been o" ered by African American women writers dating back to the 19th century (see, e.g., Beverly Guy-Sheftall’s collection, Words of Fire ). Sojourner Truth’s powerful and foundational 1851 speech to the Women’s Convention in Ohio, for example, is suggestive of an intersectional approach:

# at man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place every- where. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me!

146 INTERSECTIONALITY

Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man—when I could get it—and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold o" to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?

What Truth aimed to critique were assumptions about womanhood and femininity, and what her speech gets at is the ways that, in the mid- 19th century as in contemporary society, womanhood has no single, monolithic de! nition; race, class, sexuality, and other identities are pro- found in$ uences on an individual woman’s experience, and all of these rich identities are equally valid forms of womanhood. Intersectionality must be an important consideration when attempting to de! ne, under- stand, and advocate for the needs of “women.”

Intersectionality as a central, formal, and scholarly concern of the ! eld of Women’s and Gender Studies did not come about until the late 20th century, and was a result of the powerful critiques leveled by U.S. women of color against some elements of second-wave feminism. Many of these critiques had their origins in the experiences of women who struggled to reconcile their involvement in both antiracist and feminist activism. Latina women, for example, decried the sexism they experienced from Latino men, even as they themselves experienced rac- ism when organizing with white women against sexism. # is double bind was succinctly captured by the title of a classic anthology, All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women ’ s Studies. Many Black and Chicana women, personally faced with both racism and sexism, carved out a middle ground in which they maintained the importance of working in solidarity with men of their racial group. As Elizabeth Martinez writes in “La Chicana,”

We will not win our liberation struggle unless the women move together with the men rather than against them. We must work to convince the men that our struggle will become stronger if women are not limited to a few, special roles. We also have the right to

INTERSECTIONALITY 147

expect that our most enlightened men will join the ! ght against sexism; it should not be our battle alone.

(115) On a similar note, the Combahee River Collective writes, “[w]e

struggle together with black men against racism, while we also strug- gle with black men about sexism” (118). What these sources did, along with other texts like ! is Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color , edited by feminists of color Cherie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua, as well as work by Patricia Hill Collins, including “Toward a New Vision: Race, Class and Gender as Categories of Analysis and Connection,” was articulate what ultimately became a pillar of social justice and scholarship that supports such work.

In addition to sometimes facing overt discrimination, a variety of women, including women of color, lesbians, and working-class women, found that their experiences and perspectives were not always re$ ected in the agendas of feminist organizations, nor re$ ected in early feminist theorizing. For example, working-class women (both white women and women of color) rightly critiqued the liberal feminist assumption that working outside the home was a key to women’s liberation; these women countered that women of their economic class had been working out- side the home for generations in ways that had not transformed their experience of sexism, nor had it alleviated their economic struggles. In short, these women revealed the implicit classed assumptions of some liberal feminist agendas, and they challenged feminists to incorporate the perspectives of poor and working-class women into their work. As bell hooks writes in “Rethinking the Nature of Work,” some white middle-class feminists in the early second wave

were so blinded by their own experiences that they ignored the fact that a vast majority of women were . . . already working out- side the home, working in jobs that neither liberated them from dependence on men nor made them economically self-su& cient.

(95) Some conceptions of second-wave feminism, for example, consider

Betty Friedan’s ! e Feminine Mystique to be a touchstone text that

148 INTERSECTIONALITY

relaunched feminist critique of women’s social roles. Friedan’s illus- tration of the frustrated ambitions of educated, middle-class women, however, while driving some feminist movement, did not re$ ect or speak to women who already worked in factories, as domestics, or in service positions, and who felt neither liberated nor empowered by wage work.

Women of color, working-class women, and lesbians were critiquing what Chela Sandoval has called hegemonic feminism : that is, a femi- nism that was “white led, marginalize[d] the activism and world views of women of color, focuse[d] mainly on the United States, and treat[ed] sexism as the ultimate oppression” (# ompson 56). Rather than aban- doning feminism, however, women of color, working-class women, and lesbians asserted their right to claim and expand its focus. Barbara Smith, an African American lesbian feminist from a working-class background, coined an expanded, recon! gured de! nition of feminism that succinctly articulates this critique of and challenge to hegemonic feminism:

[f ]eminism is the political theory and practice to free all women: women of color, working-class women, poor women, physically challenged women, lesbians, old women—as well as white eco- nomically privileged heterosexual women. Anything less than this is not feminism, but merely female self-aggrandizement.

(48)

In this way, intersectionality can be seen as part of the evolution of feminist thinking and action; as the social and political activities sur- rounding feminist movement matured and gained more ground, so, too, did the focus of feminist theory, and a greater level of alignment between feminist ideals and feminist practice developed.

One way to better understand intersectionality is by exploring what it is not , that is, what it stands in contrast to. As a theoretical frame- work and an analytical approach, intersectionality stands in contrast to a single-lens or single-axis approach. Going back to our opening illus- tration about breastfeeding, a single-lens approach doesn’t look beyond gender by considering which women breastfeed and why or why not. Grzanka writes,

INTERSECTIONALITY 149

“[s]ingle-axis” is the term used in intersectional research to denote those perspectives, methods, and modes of analysis that privilege one dimension of inequality (e.g., race or gender or class) and which derive ideas, knowledge, and policy from that single dimen- sion such that all members of a racial, gender, or class group are thought to have essentially the same experiences of race, gender, or class.

(xv)

But acknowledging that a single lens is insu& cient doesn’t just mean adding in another separate lens, what Elizabeth Spelman calls an “addi- tive” approach to understanding multiple social categories. In an additive approach, sex and race and class are treated as separate categories, as opposed to intersecting. # e Combahee River Collective make this point succinctly when they use the term “simultaneity” to capture the intercon- nectedness of their identities and oppressions. # ey write, “[w]e know that there is such a thing as racial-sexual oppression which is neither solely racial nor solely sexual, e.g., the history of rape of Black women by white men as a weapon of political repression” (118). As Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic concur in their primer, Critical Race ! eory ,

[t]hese categories . . . can be separate disadvantaging factors. What happens when an individual occupies more than one of these cat- egories, for example, is both gay and Native American, or both female and Black? Individuals like these operate at an intersection of recognized sites of oppression. Do such cases require that each disadvantaging factors be considered separately, additively, or in some other fashion?

(57)

By now we hope it is clear that an intersectional approach requires us to consider them as overlapping, and that without that perspective, we can’t fully understand how multiple identities overlap to shape women’s experiences on the individual (micro) and institutional (macro) level.

Having given a sense of why and how intersectionality as a framework and tool came about and what it stands in contrast to, it is also important

150 INTERSECTIONALITY

to say more about what it is and what it can do , or rather what can be seen and understood when adopting it as a lens or category of analysis.

Intersectionality is a theoretical framework that posits that multiple social categories (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio- economic status) intersect at the micro level of individual experience to re$ ect multiple interlocking systems of privilege and oppression at the macro , social-structural level (e.g., racism, sexism, heterosexism, com- pulsory heterosexuality, heteronormativity , ableism).

When introducing the concept of intersectionality to undergraduate students, one place to start is with the micro level of individual identi- ties and experiences. Generally speaking, it is relatively easy to grasp the notion that the experiences and perspectives of women di" er in relation to various additional aspects of identity. For many students, they need look no further than to their fellow classmates to understand this. For example, trans women know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they don’t experience the privilege of cis women; lesbian students immediately grasp that their experience of navigating their social world di" ers from that of their straight peers; upon re$ ection, white students can acknowl- edge that the experiences of students of color di" er dramatically from theirs; and students from impoverished and working-class backgrounds know from the start that their lives have di" ered from their middle- class peers in fundamental ways that shape their perspectives on a wide number of issues. In other words, it is relatively easy for students to “get” that it is inaccurate to assume that there is some monolithic set of experiences that are shared by all women.

Learning Roadblocks “ We’re all di" erent but equal ” and “ Intersectionality is just or only about personal identity .” Starting a consideration of intersectionality with a focus on micro-level identities can become a roadblock to learning, however, when students don’t integrate the lessons learned about privi- lege and oppression; namely, that identities outside the mythical norm have less power than those inside it. In this scenario, students might be able to recognize di" erences among them, but be thinking in terms of being “di" erent but equal,” i.e., acknowledging di" erences, but not acknowledging that society ranks these di" erences hierarchically in

INTERSECTIONALITY 151

ways that privilege dominant groups and oppress marginalized groups. # is wrong but ostensibly well-meaning tactic can be seen, for exam- ple, when white students embrace the belief that they “don’t see color” or are “color blind.” To be clear, this is not what it means to take an intersectional approach. Ignoring or not acknowledging racial identity can erase important features of a person of color’s identity and simulta- neously close o" opportunities for much-needed critical thinking and discussion about racism and anti-racism e" orts. Overall, the challenge is to name and recognize di" erences of identity, and think about those di" erences among women in the context of systems of privilege and oppression (see Chapter 3). Otherwise, we lapse into relativism and lose sight of the signi! cance or implications of those di" erences in terms of power and privilege.

On a related note, Kimberlé Crenshaw points out that some peo- ple mistakenly believe that intersectionality is only about micro-level personal identity. As she writes in “Why Intersectionality Can’t Wait,” “intersectionality is not just about identities but about the institutions that use identity to exclude and privilege.” In a similar vein, Patrick Grzanka points out, “[w]hile intersectionality helps us to explore social and personal identities in complex and nuanced ways, intersectional analyses direct their critical attention to categories, structures, and sys- tems that produce and support multiple dimensions of di" erence” (xv). A feminist stance o" ers us macro-level and critical perspectives on how institutions and other social structures create and maintain these di" erences—with varying impacts on people a" ected by them, which is to say, all of us.

Focusing on the macro level allows us to see and consider how sys- tems of oppression intersect and are interlocking. One clear example is the connection between class oppression and ableism. As Rebecca Vallas and Shawn Fremstad succinctly put it, “[d]isability is a cause and consequence of poverty.” In other words, disability can and does cause poverty, and poverty can and does cause disability. As Vallas and Fremstad point out, poverty as a consequence of disability can be seen in the fact that “the poverty rate for working-age people with disabili- ties is nearly two and a half times higher than that for people without disabilities.” Likewise, the experience of living in poverty increases the

152 INTERSECTIONALITY

likelihood of becoming disabled, as “poverty can limit access to health care and preventive services, and increases the likelihood that a person lives and works in an environment that may adversely a" ect health.” In her work on the social construction of disability, Susan Wendell broad- ens this point even further when she points out that “[t]he social factors that can damage people’s bodies [resulting in disability] almost always a" ect some groups in a society more than others because of racism, sex- ism, heterosexism, ageism, and advantages of class background, wealth, and education.” Some forms of oppression, then, are frequently linked.

# e intersecting and interlocking nature of oppressions can also be seen through the issue of gendered violence. One of the pioneering texts on the topic of intersectionality is legal scholar Kimberlé Cren- shaw’s essay “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” What she illustrates is how an intersectional approach to the issue of gendered violence can support social justice by acknowledging that “woman” is not an essential, stable category, and all women who are in violent situations do not face the same challenges or have the same resources. Recognizing, for example, that the role of social class and access to economic resources is of pro- found importance for women seeking to leave a violent situation, or that national status/immigration status shapes the needs of immigrant women who experience violence, Crenshaw’s analysis points to the ways that institutions, as they intersect with individual women’s needs, must be examined if we hope to have a full understanding of how to combat racism, sexism, or other forms of social oppression.

Crenshaw observes that the provisions in the Immigration Act of 1990 allowed for exceptions to the standard “marriage fraud rules,” requiring that immigrant women be married for two years before being considered for permanent citizenship; this made immigrant women particularly vulnerable to battering and abuse because they (a) fear deportation, (b) may possess limited language or literacy skills that would prevent them from accessing the resources and securing the documentation required to pursue the exemption process, and (c) face cultural barriers that might discourage women from proceeding with the process. In this case, intersecting institutions—government and legal agencies, family structures, cultural norms, employment status,

INTERSECTIONALITY 153

legal status, marriage structures—all overlap to shape individual wom- en’s experiences; simultaneously, immigrant women’s language status, age, class, and national identity make up “micro” categories that are also important in understanding—and interrogating—essentialist rhetorics around equality of choice and autonomy.

# inking about the issue of combating gendered violence at the level of praxis, without an intersectional approach, a shelter for victims of violence might not consider the need to ensure that their facility was accessible via public transportation so that it could be reached by a wide range of people, not just those who had the economic means to own and/or have access to a car. Similarly, without an intersectional approach, the same shelter might not consider the need to provide their written materials in multiple languages, not just English. And ! nally, without an intersectional approach, a shelter might not consider that some women seeking their services might be in same-sex relationships, and that some people seeking their services might not be women. More discussion of intersectional praxis will be found in Chapter 5.

At the level of analysis, intersectionality is also an invaluable tool for making sense of the world around us and for complicating our think- ing and understanding. For example, 1970s research about men’s gender role expectations by David and Brannon (and popularized by Michael Kimmel) identi! ed four dictates of masculinity: (1) No Sissy Stu" (i.e., a prohibition on expression of feminine characteristics); (2) Be a Big Wheel (i.e., strive for status and success); (3) Be a Sturdy Oak (i.e., be con! dent, stoic, and self-reliant); and (4) Give ’em Hell (i.e., take risks, be daring and aggressive). If we take a new look at these four dictates of masculinity from an intersectional perspective, we might ask the ques- tion of whether and how some of these dictates also have a basis in, or association with, men of di" erent races or classes in ways that don’t fully account for men’s experiences of male gender socialization. # e status and success associated with being a Big Wheel, for example, is clearly de! ned in terms of material goods and a' uence, more typi- cal of a middle-class and upper-middle-class masculinity grounded in consumer capitalism . In other words, we would not be content to think about masculinity exclusively in terms of gender but would ask how race and class, for example, shape its expression. We might also ask whether

154 INTERSECTIONALITY

there are internal tensions or even contradictions in the performance of masculinity that are related to race and class.

One arena in which to try out these ideas would be in the media cov- erage of male heads of state. Arguably, male heads of state epitomize the second dictate of masculinity, the Big Wheel, but the activities, clothes, and mannerisms that go along with that aspect of masculinity run the risk of overshadowing or perhaps undermining the fourth dictate (“Give ’em Hell”), and also the ! rst, “No Sissy Stu" .” # inking about masculin- ity in this way can help us understand why Vladimir Putin of Russia so frequently appears shirtless in rugged natural settings; why President George W. Bush was photographed so frequently during his presidency wearing Western-style clothing while engaged in manual labor on his ranch and grabbing a beer with constituents in rural bars; or why former President Obama felt compelled to respond publicly and repeatedly to journalists and critics who dubbed the pants he wore to the 2009 Major League Baseball All-Star game “mom jeans.” Writing in the Washington Post about the “mom jeans” episode, Robin Givhan re$ ects on the dif- ! culties faced by all campaigning politicians:

[w]hen they’re angling for votes, they know any hint of rare! ed tastes or an aesthetic sensibility that is more Barneys New York than Macy’s raises questions about whether they are ! t for the job of representing all the regular folks. When it comes to clothes, the president must appear to be as mass market and main $ oor as possible.

Givhan’s remarks hint at the class tensions in the president’s appearance, but the gender dynamic evident in the descriptor of his jeans is evident as well. # e ways that masculinity is classed and racialized will be discussed again in the Language, Images, and Symbols anchoring topic.

Closely related to the issue of what intersectionality, as a tool or lens, can do, then, are its goals, or what it aims to accomplish. Dill and Zam- brana identify four main goals of intersectional scholarship:

1) reformulate the world of ideas so that it incorporates the many contradictory and overlapping ways that human life is experienced;

INTERSECTIONALITY 155

2) convey this knowledge by rethinking curricula and promoting institutional change in higher education institutions; 3) apply the knowledge in an e" ort to create a society in which all voices are heard; and 4) advocate for public policies that are responsive to multiple voices.

(177)

Anchoring Topics through the Lens of Intersectionality Work and Family In this section, we build upon Chapter 3’s discussion of work and family by looking at three topics through an intersectional lens: 1) work–life balance; 2) the horizontal segregation of the labor market; and 3) the gendered division of household labor and child care.

Work–life balance refers to how working families attempt to balance the demands of paid labor with the demands of personal responsi- bilities, including children and eldercare. Di" erent countries take di" erent approaches to developing policies that will support this kind of balance—paid family leave to accommodate the birth or adoption of a child or care of a sick family member, for example—as well as policies to support breastfeeding, to accommodate family responsibilities, to care for sick children, or to limit maximum work hours per week. One way to take an intersectional approach to the issue of work–life balance is to explore how the experiences of working women di" er depending on their social class.

As discussed in Chapter 3, social class is profoundly important in shaping women’s experiences of the labor market and the various kinds of privileges and rights they are entitled to. Even within certain classes of employment—for example, professional work—there are varying levels of work–life balance and policies that guarantee those. Women working part time, for hourly wages, or in low-income occupations face particular challenges in securing paid leave and time o" to accommo- date family responsibilities, the birth of a child, or to cover sickness or the illness of a family member. # e current FMLA eligibility policies, for example, disproportionately limit the access of part-time and low- income women to its provisions. As mentioned in Chapter 3, FMLA

156 INTERSECTIONALITY

applies only to private employers with at least 50 employees, which excludes employees who work for small businesses. It also only applies to those employees who have been working close to full time (1,250 hours/ year) and for at least 12 months. For women whose caretaking responsi- bilities require them to work limited or part-time hours, federal policies are inadequate, such that policies aimed only at “working women” miss an important opportunity to carefully assess the diverse needs of women and make appropriate accommodations and interventions.

Professional women in the labor force with what Sylvia Ann Hewlett has called “extreme jobs” may face a double bind—although they may be salaried employees with a relatively greater degree of job security, corporate culture may dissuade such women (and men) from availing themselves of the policies that do exist to accommodate work–life bal- ance. Marissa Mayer, CEO of online search engine Yahoo from 2012 until 2017, provides a case study of this dilemma. Mayer caused pub- lic controversy throughout her 2012 pregnancy and childbirth. Prior to giving birth, Mayer told Fortune , “‘I like to stay in the rhythm of things,’ she said. ‘My maternity leave will be a few weeks long and I’ll work throughout it.’” In response, Kara Nortman, a fellow woman tech entre- preneur and Senior Vice President of Consumer Businesses at CityGrid Media, wrote an impassioned blog post asking Mayer to “take a real maternity leave of some variety!” Nortman wrote:

Whether Marissa realizes it or not, the way she treats maternity leave will serve as an example or an anti-example for all woman looking for a path, for those women who do not want “to gap” their ambition, but also want to enjoy being a parent .

Later, Mayer stated at a public event, “# e thing that surprised me is that the job is really fun . . . and the baby’s been easy. # e baby’s been way easier than everyone made it out to be. I’ve been really lucky that way” (Grose).

Mayer’s decision to double available family leave for new mothers from 8 weeks to 16 weeks, but to prohibit telecommuting and work- ing from home, also engendered public discussion when Yahoo’s new policy was announced. # e human resources department released a

INTERSECTIONALITY 157

statement arguing “[s]peed and quality are often sacri! ced when we work from home,” and “[w]e need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together” (Swisher). In Sylvia Hewlett’s O" -Ramps and On-Ramps, she critiques the “male competitive model” that struc- tures work expectations around extreme hours, o& ce “face time,” and relentless demands on the time of employees, along with what she calls “cumulative, lockstep careers and a continuous, linear employment his- tory,” a model that can derail women employees in their childbearing years without structural and institutional policies that allow for work– life balance, as the debate around Mayer’s pregnancy and postpartum work schedule illustrates.

Bene! tting from resources and institutional power, Marissa Mayer’s array of choices in work–life/work–family balance stands in striking con- trast with those women who do not hold jobs in the professional class. As Working Mother magazine reports, the majority of hourly employees (those who have less secure employment and are more likely to work part time) are women, with women making up 61 percent of the 75 mil- lion hourly employees and a median wage of $11.49 per hour (Working Mother). Simultaneously, the average cost of full-time child care for an infant ranges in 2016 from $9,484 per year in Mississippi to $29,878 in Massachusetts. Center-based child care fees for two children were greater than the cost of household expenditures for rent in all 50 states and average mortgage costs in 20 states (Childcare Aware).

# e contrast between the experiences of the professional middle class and working-class people can be seen even more sharply by looking at one company’s two-tiered bene! ts package. In 2015 Net$ ix made headlines when it announced that it would be providing twelve months of paid parental leave to its employees. # e move was heralded as pro- gressive and a good step toward helping the U.S. catch up with other countries. Praise for the policy was quickly tempered, however, as people realized the catch: the policy did not apply to all of their employees. # e new policy pertained only to white-collar, salaried employees on the streaming side of the business, and not to the more blue-collar hourly workers in their DVD distribution centers. In his commentary on the Net$ ix policy, Robert Reich not only criticized the company for creat- ing a two-tier policy that provided more generous bene! ts to a select

158 INTERSECTIONALITY

few, but also noted that the select few were unlikely to take advantage of the policy, which echoes the discussion above about Marissa Mayer and Yahoo. As Reich noted of the elite, salaried workers at Net$ ix, “[f ]orget work–life balance. It’s work-as-life.”

Petitions demanding that Net$ ix extend its generous bene! ts to all of its workers quickly circulated and gathered 100,000 signatures; in response, Net$ ix defended its two-tier policy, pointing out that the twelve weeks of paid leave o" ered to its hourly employees was more generous than most companies, many of whom o" er no paid family leave. In a 2015 article about the controversy over the policy, Emily Peck notes that “only 12 percent of workers in the U.S. are o" ered paid family leave by their employers,” and that “[a]bout 25 percent of women in the nation return to work just two weeks after giving birth.” Peck and many others argue that two-tiered policies like Net- $ ix’s are the result of leaving family leave up to employers, as opposed to mandating paid family leave at the federal level. # is argument echoes the point made in Chapter 3 that federal-level policies (or the lack thereof ) have the e" ect of privileging some groups of women while oppressing others, and further illustrates how macro-level policy making reinforces privilege and oppression that is understood more e" ectively through an intersectional analysis (in this case, of gender and social class).

# e second topic in this section returns us to the discussion, in Chapter 2, of the horizontal segregation of the labor market. To review, the horizontal segregation of labor refers to the fact that many occu- pations and professions are dominated by either men or by women. As discussed in that chapter, women tend to dominate in ! elds where the work is seen as feminine, while men tend to make up the major- ity in ! elds where the work is seen as masculine (and in both cases, it is important to remember that the traits and characteristics of mascu- linity and femininity are socially constructed). Given that masculinity is valued more highly in our culture, male-dominated occupations and professions tend to have higher status and pay than female-dominated ones. # e case study in Chapter 2 looked at examples of how some pro- fessions have changed their gender composition over time, and to what e" ect; in those instances, the focus was on women entering previously

INTERSECTIONALITY 159

male-dominated professions. If we take an intersectional approach to this topic and look at race and class in relation to gender, however, we can see a more nuanced picture of who does what kinds of work and why.

Claire Cain Miller recently reported on a research study that shows that in the last ! fteen years, men have been as likely to move into previously female-dominated occupations as women have been to move into male- dominated occupations. Miller quickly follows up this assertion with a quali! cation that points to how the researchers, sociologists Patricia A. Roos and Lindsay M. Stevens, used an intersectional lens when con- ducting their research; as she puts it, men are now just as likely to move into previously female-dominated occupations as the other way around, “but not all men.” # e question to ask, then, is which men are moving into previously female-dominated jobs such as counter clerks and prod- uct promoters? Miller’s answer

“[i]t’s those who are already disadvantaged in the labor market: black, Hispanic, less educated, poor and immigrant men. While work done by women continues to be valued less, the study dem- onstrates, job opportunities divide not just along gender lines but also by race and class.

Referring back to Chapter 2’s focus on women moving into previ- ously male-dominated ! elds, we could ask a similar question: which women are moving into the higher paying, higher status previously male-dominated ! elds? According to the researchers, the women “are likely to be white, educated, native-born, and married.” One of the take- aways of this research is that if we only focus on gender when looking at the labor market, we fail to fully understand how and why the gen- der composition of occupations changes over time. As Raewyn Connell puts it, in order to understand gender “we must constantly go beyond gender.”

# e ! nal topic in this section brings an intersectional focus to the division of labor within families; more speci! cally, non-heterosexual families. Discussions of the gendered division of labor in hetero- sexual families are a staple of Women’s and Gender Studies courses.

160 INTERSECTIONALITY

A signi! cant body of feminist scholarship focuses on who does what kind of work and how much of it within the home, in terms of house- work and childcare in particular, as a way of charting whether and how men’s and women’s expectations and societal roles have changed over time. While data show that, within heterosexual families, men do markedly more household work than they did in the past (an average of 12.5 hours a week in 2005, compared to about six hours a week in 1976), overall, women still perform more household labor than men (16.5 hours per week in 2005). Likewise, according to Bianchi et al. (2012), married heterosexual men have increased the amount of time spent in caring for children over the last several decades (from 2.4 hours per week in 1975 to 7.2 hours per week in 2009/10), but the gap between the time married heterosexual men and women spend in child- care is even more pronounced than the gap in housework, with women spending 13.7 hours. In this body of research, the explicit focus is on gender inequality, but what is often not named explicitly or taken for granted is the sexual identity of the couples. What happens when the lens is expanded to look at families other than heterosexual ones?

Until relatively recently, there was very little research done on families with same-sex couples. As such, the 2015 survey “Modern Families: Same- and Di" erent-Sex Couples Negotiating at Home” is interesting for many reasons, but especially because it includes both same-sex and di" erent-sex couples. Including same-sex couples in the survey along with di" erent-sex couples allows for comparisons to be made across the two groups, comparisons that can shed light on the extent to which traditional gender roles shape contemporary family life for heterosexual couples, and how same-sex couples negotiate the division of labor in their homes in the relative absence of those gender role expectations. One of the more striking ! ndings of the survey is that the same-sex couples surveyed reported sharing childcare more equally than the di" erent-sex couples. And even when household work was not equally shared by same-sex couples, it seemed to be for di" erent reasons than in di" erent-sex couples. More speci! cally, according to the report, “[a]mong di" erent-sex, dual-earner couples, gender, income, and work hours are predictive of how responsibilities are divided,” whereas in same-sex, dual-earner couples, “relative income

INTERSECTIONALITY 161

and work hours are not reliable predictors for how they do divide responsibilities.” Research like this that goes beyond a single-axis lens is more inclusive and sheds light on a previously under-researched group (same-sex couples), but as signi! cantly, in doing so, it also sheds light on the dominant group.

But research on the division of labor within same-sex couples could go even further in adopting an intersectional approach, as pointed out by Abbie E. Goldberg in her 2013 article, “‘Doing’ and ‘Undoing’ Gender: # e Meaning and Division of Housework in Same-Sex Couples.” Gold- berg points out that most research on same-sex couples and housework has focused on middle-class couples, and she posits that “[r]esearch on working-class same-sex couples’ experiences of dividing labor may more fully reveal how both structural and attitudinal factors associated with social class a" ect the negotiation and perception of housework.” While this research has not yet been conducted, Goldberg imagines possible reasons why working-class same-sex couples may have either an easier or more di& cult time equally sharing household chores than same-sex middle-class couples.

All three of these examples illustrate how intersectional approaches to issues of work and family help us see those issues more fully, deeply, and complexly.

100%

50%

0%

26%

74% 62%

38%

Same-sex couples

Different-sex couples

One person takes primary responsibility

Share the responsibility

Figure 4.1 Division of Routine Childcare by Couple Type Source: Modern Families: Same and Di" erent Sex Couples Negotiating at Home, Families and Work Institute Note: N = 52 couples with children where both members agree one or both of them takes respon- sibility for routine child care; p < .01

162 INTERSECTIONALITY

100%

50%

0%

38%

62% 68%

32%

Same-sex couples

Different-sex couples

One person takes primary responsibility

Share the responsibility

Figure 4.2 Division of Sick Child Care by Couple Type Source: Modern Families: Same and Di" erent Sex Couples Negotiating at Home, Families and Work Institute Note: N = 52 couples with children where both members agree one or both of them takes respon- sibility for routine child care; p < .05

Figure 4.3 Weekly Hours of Basic Housework by Gender Source: U of Michigan Institute for Social Research Panel Study of Income Dynamics

Women

Men

2005

1976

0 10 20 30

Language, Images, and Symbols Chapter 3 presented the idea that systems of privilege and oppression play out through the arena of cultural images and representations. One of the ways that the power of a dominant group manifests is through its ability to produce and control images and representations not only of its own group but of marginalized groups, who by de! nition have

INTERSECTIONALITY 163

less power. A substantial body of feminist scholarship has focused on the creation and perpetuation of feminine beauty ideals and masculine body ideals. # is scholarship has focused on the fact that the cultural images and representations of feminine beauty ideals are often not cre- ated by women themselves. Feminist communication and media studies scholarship seeks to explain how the beauty and body ideal functions in the context of consumer capitalism for both men and women. A related focus of feminist scholarship has been the exploration of how people both internalize and resist these images and representations.

An intersectional approach to masculine and feminine norms of appearance emphasizes that those norms di" er by race and class. # at is, gendered norms of appearance are racialized and classed. # eorist R. W. Connell, for example, writes about “multiple masculinities: black as well as white, working-class as well as middle-class” (256). # e popu- lar and controversial reality television show Duck Dynasty provides a good example of how masculinity is classed, and more generally shows the socially constructed and performative aspects of masculinity. # e hair and clothing of the men featured on the show have become iconic in American culture: consumer products everywhere feature the clan with long hair and beards, wearing camou$ age clothing. Photos of the men surfaced in 2012, however, which revealed that prior to their show, they performed masculinity very di" erently, wearing polo shirts and khaki shorts, with short haircuts and clean cut faces. One photo fea- tures the men posed with golf clubs. # e outrage some expressed after these photos surfaced came from a sense that the men on the show were attempting to appeal to their largely politically conservative, working- class, and male audience through being inauthentic, performing a working-class masculinity that drew from recreational activities (hunt- ing, for example) and male-dominated institutions (military-inspired appearances) to create a hugely pro! table popular culture product. At the very least, the two sets of images reveal that masculinity is not monolithic or one-size-! ts-all, but rather co-constructed with other aspects of identity and that individuals or groups may and can choose to express those gender constructions di" erently. Complicating this point, however, is the notion that gender constructions can be wielded for commercial and/or political purposes.

164 INTERSECTIONALITY

Furthermore, Connell and others have emphasized that some forms of masculinity are valued more highly than others; this point builds on Chapter 2’s discussion of gender ranking. Just as masculinity is valued more highly than femininity in our culture, so some forms of masculin- ity are valued more highly than others. For example, Connell asserts, “[g]ay men are subordinated to straight men by an array of quite mate- rial practices” (257). Paul Kivel makes a similar point when he asserts that while the act-like-a-man box (discussed in Chapter 2) “is a meta- phor for the pressure all boys must respond to, the possibility that a boy will have control over the conditions of his life varies depending on his race, class, and culture” (149). Returning to the arena of images and sym- bols, working-class men and men of color are frequently pathologized in popular culture representations of them, and gay men are frequently represented in stereotypical and one-dimensional ways.

For example, men of color occupy central roles in particular types of popular culture—athletics, particularly football and basketball and to a lesser degree baseball—high status and well-compensated cultural venues that resonate with the “big wheel” and “no sissy stu" ” dictates of masculinity. However, male athletes of color must simultaneously occupy a space in which this violent masculinity is particularly fraught because of the intersection of gender and race. For example, the 2014 controversy over remarks made by Seattle Seahawks cornerback Rich- ard Sherman illustrates this dilemma. Following a game-winning play, Sherman conducted a post-game interview with white female sports reporter Erin Andrews, in which he o" ered comments ! lled with a range of emotion. Sherman’s intense interview resulted in wide- spread Internet and media characterization of him as a “thug,” a term Sherman astutely deconstructed in later interviews, observing “[t]he only reason it bothers me is because it seems like it’s the accepted way of calling somebody the N-word nowadays. Because they know” (Petchesky). Although Sherman’s remarks to Andrews used the typical athletic rhetoric of dominance (against an opposing team player), Sher- man’s “outburst” drew a heated public response in which an analysis of television discourse the following day revealed the term “thug” to have appeared three times as frequently as the day before (Wagner). Although Sherman’s outburst was hardly more extreme than those that

INTERSECTIONALITY 165

white players o" er with regularity, the cultural response supports Greg Howard’s claim that

[t]oo many of us think that one ecstatic, triumphant black man showing honest, human emotion just seconds after making a play that very well could be written into the ! rst appositive of his obit- uary, is not only o" ensive, but is also representative of the tens of millions of blacks in this country. And in two weeks time, in the year 2014, too many of us will be rooting for the Denver Broncos for no other reason than to knock Richard Sherman down a few notches, if only to put him back in his place.

(Howard)

Many of those criticizing Sherman’s behavior and calling him a thug seemed to do so because they perceived his words and actions to be an a" ront to Erin Andrews’s white womanhood (in one highly publi- cized tweet, her reaction was described as “petri! ed”). In other words, an intersectional analysis of Sherman’s racialized masculinity must be understood in relation to Andrews’s racialized femininity.

An intersectional approach to representations of the feminine beauty ideal focuses on the fact that beauty, at least in mainstream, mass- market culture, continues to be de! ned primarily as white, able-bodied, young, and heterosexual. # is means that older women, women of color, women with disabilities, and queer women are featured less often in advertisements, on television, in movies, and on magazine covers. In 1978, Tuchman and colleagues coined the term symbolic annihilation to describe the relative absence of marginalized groups in the mass media. # is absence has the e" ect of sending the message that these marginalized groups are unimportant and beneath notice. With regard to beauty ideals, the message is that women who are not white, able- bodied, young, and heterosexual are not attractive or desirable. For example, in their 2006 study of bridal magazines, Frisby and Engstrom asked the question, “How often and in what roles are African Ameri- can women represented as brides and bridesmaids in advertisements in national bridal magazines over the past ! ve years?” (11–12). # ey looked at over 6,000 ads in 57 issues of three di" erent bridal magazines and

166 INTERSECTIONALITY

found that less than 2 percent of the ads featured an African American woman as a bride, and no issues featured an African American bride on its cover, although African Americans make up 13.1 percent of the U.S. population (U.S. Census). Feminist scholars engaged in this kind of inquiry pose and investigate these questions in order to make visible such gaps in mass media, popular culture, or other forms of symbolic representation.

Furthermore, when women whose identities place them de facto outside the feminine beauty ideal are represented in the media, those representations tend to be stereotypical and to reinforce the dominant culture’s ideas about these marginalized groups. Women of color and poor women in particular tend to be represented in ways that reinforce their otherness. For example, Patricia Hill Collins has written about the “controlling images” of African American women; in Black Feminist ! ought she writes, “[p]ortraying African-American women as stereo- typical mammies, matriarchs, welfare recipients, and hot mommas helps justify U.S. Black women’s oppression. Challenging these controlling images has long been a core theme in Black feminist thought” (69). Vivyan Adair, a white, female professor of Women’s Studies raised by a single mother on welfare, uses similar language. In “Branded with Infamy: Inscriptions of Poverty and Class in the United States,” she writes, “[t]he bodies of poor women and children, scarred and mutilated by state-mandated material deprivation and public exhibition, work as spectacles, as patrolling images socializing and controlling bodies within the body politic” (461). Adair’s claims are clearly shown in some of the most popular contemporary forms of television entertainment. For example, reality television is a genre where working-class women and women of color frequently appear, but often in negative and stereotypi- cal ways (think Here Comes Honey Boo Boo ). One show, VH1’s Charm School (itself an o" shoot of Flavor of Love and Rock of Love , which are similar to ! e Bachelor ), not only shows that the feminine beauty ideal is racialized and classed, but also reveals that there is a hierarchy of femi- ninity, with the femininity of working-class women of all races being characterized as de! cient or pathologized. # e premise of the show is that the feminine behavior and appearance of the women featured on the show is problematic and dysfunctional; the show o" ers to teach

INTERSECTIONALITY 167

these women the proper, correct type of femininity, which is to say, a dominant culture (read: white and middle-class) femininity.

An intersectional approach to representations of the feminine beauty ideal not only focuses on whether and how diverse groups of women appear in the mass media; it also focuses on how diverse groups of women respond to and are a" ected by the mainstream cul- ture’s narrow construction of beauty. Lisa Duke, for example, notes “the interest media scholars and critics have shown in identifying the ways in which the mass media might be implicated in producing neg- ative psychic e" ects in women and girls” (367). In her article “Black in a Blonde World: Race and Girls’ Interpretations of the Feminine Ideal in Teen Magazines,” she set out to explore how “race in$ uence[s] girls’ readings of teen magazines and the magazines’ portrayals of the feminine ideal” (368).

Media critics interested in an audience’s response to a text and whether and how they are a" ected by it have noted that responses range from accommodation to rejection and all points in between— what Stuart Hall referred to as dominant hegemonic, negotiated, and oppositional readings. In Duke’s ! ndings, based on interviews with middle-class white and African American teen girls, the African Amer- ican girls invested less authority in the teen magazines’ prescriptions about beauty and body image than the white girls did. When asked, the African American teens de! ned beauty more often in terms of per- sonality than physical appearance, and valued a di" erent body aesthetic (curvier and heavier) than the white girls did. # is is not to say, however, that African American girls and women, as well as other women of color, do not experience self-doubt or lowered self-esteem as a result of their symbolic annihilation in the media, but rather that their relative absence from beauty magazines in particular is a double-edged sword, providing the message that they are outside the dominant beauty ideal, but also allowing some space for the creation of an alternate ideal. # at is to say, there are competing beauty ideals that are community speci! c, that is, within a lesbian community, various racial-ethnic communities, and so forth.

Some scholars have argued that the increasing visibility of women of color in the entertainment industry (popular music, television, movies,

168 INTERSECTIONALITY

modeling and fashion, etc.) has contributed to a diversi! cation and expansion of previously very narrow beauty ideals. Celebrities like Beyonce Knowles, Kim Kardashian, Jennifer Lopez, Nikki Minaj, and others have highlighted their voluptuous ! gures and given rise to the term “bubble butt,” referring to curvaceous rear ends, a contrast to the previous era’s emphasis on slim physiques. # ough it could be argued that this expansion of beauty standards to include physical attributes previ- ously associated with women of color represents progress in the media, scholars like Naomi Wolf have pointed out that it is exactly the constant changing of beauty standards themselves that oppresses women—what she calls the “ beauty myth ” is the notion that beauty is objective and unchanging, when historical examination of beauty standards reveals continued changes in cultural standards about what constitutes beauty as well as variation from culture to culture about what physical beauty looks like. In this way, women are preoccupied with an ever-changing standard such that, as Wolf asserts, “[t]he beauty myth is always actually prescribing behaviour and not appearance.”

Many women engage simultaneously in acts of accommodation and resistance, choosing to emulate the mainstream beauty ideal in some ways while rejecting other aspects of it. # e work of scholars such as Connell, Hill Collins, Adair, and Duke, among many others, illustrates that questions about the symbolic dimensions of gender are intersected with race and class and not homogeneously connected to critiques of sexism or misogyny in ways that are generalizable to all men and women.

Bodies One of the core issues that centered the second wave of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s was health care, particularly around women’s access to bodily autonomy and choice within the medical industry. A nota- ble contribution to feminist activism was the formation of the Boston Women’s Health Book Collective, a group of twelve women in Boston whose activist concerns centered around women’s access to accurate, women-centered knowledge about their bodies. # ese early advocacy e" orts called attention to the ways that male-dominated medical prac- tices were the products of patriarchal values; an even closer examination

INTERSECTIONALITY 169

using an intersectional lens can pull apart how privilege and oppression as experienced in healthcare must be understood on multiple axes.

Within the medical industry, the four values of patriarchal culture identi! ed by Allan Johnson (a society that is male-dominated, male- identi! ed, male-centered, and obsessed with control) are evident and reveal women’s oppression within the infrastructure, policy, and practices that reframe childbirth from a natural part of a woman’s reproductive life cycle to a medical event of a pathological nature often requiring pharmaceutical and sometimes even surgical intervention. As the report “Evidence-Based Maternity Care” illustrates, many interventions to physiological childbirth are overused, while those that can o" er equal bene! t are underused, with women’s ability to achieve physiological childbirth often undermined or questioned through medical practices. As the report explains,

many practices that are disproved or appropriate for mothers and babies only in limited circumstances are in wide use. Conversely, numerous bene! cial practices are underused because they o" er limited scope for economic gain, are less compatible with pre- dominant medical values and practices, or have only recently been favorably evaluated.

(Sakala and Corry 9)

In a culture that privileges control, e& ciency, and convenience over toler- ance for the timing uncertainties of natural processes such as labor and delivery, the overuse of convenience methods such as induction of labor, episiotomies, and vacuum- and forceps-assisted deliveries predominate at levels well beyond the logical bene! ts to women and babies (see Table 4.3). Table 4.3 Rate of Birth Interventions and Practices Intervention or Practice 2000–2002 2005 2011–2012 Care provider used drugs or some other technique to try to cause labor to begin

44% 41% 41%

Had epidural or spinal analgesia for pain relief 63% 76% 67% Midwife attended baby’s birth 10% 8% 10%

(Continued)

170 INTERSECTIONALITY

A good example of this kind of intervention beyond levels of sound medical practice is the increase in deliveries by cesarean section. # e rate of cesarean section—or surgical intervention in childbirth, both emer- gency and planned—has skyrocketed in the last several decades. As Sakala and Corry document, the C-section rate in the United States rose from 9.5 percent as recently as 1990 to 22.3 percent in 2005, and in 2010, the rate had risen to 32.8 percent, nearly a third of all births (Centers for Disease Control). # e World Health Organization (WHO) estimated in 2010 that, in 2008, some 6.2 million C-sections were performed unneces- sarily (and another 3.18 million should have been performed but weren’t, primarily in developing countries with little access to advanced medical technology and facilities). In 1985, WHO declared, “[t]here is no jus- ti! cation for any region to have C-section rates higher than 10–15%” (Gibbons 4). In terms of privilege and oppression, these data reveal how the patriarchal medical profession imposes assumptions and values that serve to control women’s choices, to normalize the medicalization of

Table 4.3 (Continued) Intervention or Practice 2000–2002 2005 2011–2012 Had narcotics intravenously for pain relief 30% 22% 16% Used no pain medication 20% 14% 17% Doula provided supportive care during birth 5% 3% 6% Obstetrician/gynecologist attended birth 80% 79% 70% Family physician attended birth 4% 7% 6% Had a spontaneous vaginal birth 64% 61% 59% Had forceps or vacuum extraction 11% 7% 11% Had cesarean section 24% 32% 31% Used immersion in tub or pool for comfort na 6% 8% Used shower for comfort na 4% 10% Drank anything during labor 35% 43% 41% Ate anything during labor 14% 15% 20% Gave birth lying on back na 57% 68% Episiotomy 35% 25% 17% Women who indicated a desire to exclusively breastfeed who received formula or water to supplement breast milk

47% 38% 29%

Source: Data provided by the Listening to Mothers Surveys1 conducted by Childbirth Connection

INTERSECTIONALITY 171

childbirth, and to present di" erential (and often medically inferior) care to a speci! c group served by this institution (women).

A closer look at the data, however, reveals that not all women have C-sections at the same rate. In their analysis of all recorded births from the year 2006 in the U.S., for example, Louise Roth and Megan Henley found that non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic/Latina, and Native American women had higher rates of delivery via C-section than non-Hispanic white and Asian women. # rough an intersectional lens of privilege and oppression, the data show that women with race and class privilege use that privi- lege to, in the researchers’ words, “avoid medically unnecessary cesarean deliveries rather than to request them” (207). On the $ ip side, Roth notes “pervasive racial-ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in maternity care (and) health care more generally, yet there has been little scrutiny of how overuse of cesarean deliveries might be linked to these disparities.”

Similar disparities can be seen in the rates of pre term births and infant mortality rates. While 11.4 percent of all infants were born pre- term in 2013, that rate rose to 16.3 percent for non-Hispanic black infants; meanwhile, 25 percent of all preterm births (because of the greater number rather than percentage) are to Hispanic women. Pre- term birth is concerning because of its role as a leading cause of infant mortality (March of Dimes), and as the March of Dimes reports,

Figure 4.4 Infant Mortality Rates by Race Source: www.npr.org/2011/07/08/137652226/-the-race-gap

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25% 3.0%

2.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

’07’07’00 ’00 ’00’90

Maternal deaths per 100,000 live births

Preterm birth rate (under 37 weeks)

Very low birthweight (less than 3 lbs, 4 oz)

Infant deaths per 1,000 live births

’90 ’90 ’90’08 ’08

Wh ite

Wh ite

Bla ck

Bla ck

His pan

ic All

rac es

His pan

ic All

rac es

Wh ite

Bla ck

His pan

ic All

rac es

Wh ite

Bla ck

His pan

ic All

rac es

172 INTERSECTIONALITY

“[b]lack women are about 60 percent more likely than white women to deliver babies early, and black infants are about 230 percent more likely than white infants to die before their ! rst birthdays.”

While researchers know that some risk factors are greater for black mothers including inadequate prenatal care, substance abuse, or health factors like obesity or diabetes, research also shows that

[t]he gap does not narrow with age and educational attainment. In other words, white women’s health outcomes improve as they climb the socioeconomic ladder and give birth in their 20s and early 30s, rather than in their teen years. Not so for black women, whose health problems seem to compound with age.

(Norris)

Public health scholars have identi! ed a phenomenon called “weather- ing” that is at work—the stressors of racism and social disadvantage are di& cult to compensate for even with greater levels of educational attainment and socioeconomic resources.

# e topic of women’s reproductive control, particularly the female- controlled hormonal, oral contraceptive, illustrates how an intersectional lens can deepen our understanding of women’s sexuality and the multiple identities that in$ ect it. As the PBS documentary, ! e Pill , explains, one of the early goals of the women’s movement, after su" rage, was female- controlled birth control (“Timeline”). However, limiting conversations around women’s access to birth control overlooks a number of the intra- group di" erences that shape women’s needs: for example, lesbians may have di" erent reproductive needs than heterosexual women; historically, many African American women’s concerns had di" erent emphases than white women; women with class privilege had a much larger array of options in terms of birth control and abortion than working-class and working-poor women; and marital status and age were, and continue to be, important in re$ ecting and determining a woman’s reproductive needs and her level of reproductive control.

A look at the historical conditions out of which the female-controlled oral contraceptive emerged provides insight into the way institutions intersect and individual women’s identities frame their experiences. Birth control activist Margaret Sanger opened a birth control clinic in

INTERSECTIONALITY 173

the United States in 1916. With the ! nancial backing of wealthy philan- thropist Katharine Dexter McCormick, Sanger spearheaded the e" orts on contraceptive research, ultimately collaborating with McCormick and scientist Gregory Pincus to explore hormonal birth control methods. An intersectional lens shows that social class played an important role in allowing Sanger and McCormick to advocate for access to female- controlled birth control, as did their respective educational achievements. McCormick had access to higher education; she earned a degree in biology from Massachusetts Institute of Technology—only the second woman to do so. Sanger pursued nursing training as a young woman.

In the development of the pill, two particular features deserve attention in order to illustrate how intersectional approaches can com- plicate and unpack discussions around reproductive control. Sanger and McCormick led the development of the new technology, but the scien- ti! c work was done by Gregory Pincus, and the human trials—required for any such drug—were led by Dr. John Rock. However, given that distributing contraceptives or information about contraceptives was illegal in most places in the United States, Rock sought out another region and population that could participate in the human clinical tri- als: Puerto Rico. Region and race play roles here in understanding the signi! cance of the pill’s development, as the Puerto Rican women who participated in the study were typically illiterate or semiliterate and were part of a developing industrial culture that was producing more opportunities for women’s employment outside the home. Charges of racial discrimination—or put di" erently, racial and class exploitation— have been retrospectively alleged regarding this work because of the lack of what we now know as informed consent . Participants in modern- day studies such as these would have been required to receive a more substantial education about the potential side e" ects of the drug and would not have been participants for the length of time that they were. Because of the heavy dosages used in the early versions of the pill, close to 17 percent of study participants had signi! cant side e" ects, and 25 withdrew because of the seriousness of those e" ects. One participant died of congestive heart failure. In this instance, participants’ identi- ties as working-class puertoriqueñas intersected with their gender in the lack of access to social power, information, and protection a" orded them during the study process.

174 INTERSECTIONALITY

Objections from African American Communities Emerging from past coercive sterilization practices imposed on African American women, controversy about black women’s use of the pill com- plicated the discussion of reproductive control and the development of the oral contraceptive. A story in the Nation in 1974 documented mul- tiple cases of coerced sterilization, such as two adolescent sisters who were sterilized after their mother, who was illiterate, was presented with misleading information about the nature of the procedure. Another case reported on the coerced sterilization of Nial Cox, 26, who was told her family would not be eligible for welfare bene! ts if she did not undergo the procedure. Against this backdrop and in the simultaneous cultural context of the Black Power movement, an outgrowth of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, African American men and women were justi- ! ably suspicious of what they viewed as e" orts on the part of whites to limit black fertility. Whereas for many white women the pill heralded a new level of self-determination and autonomy around controlling the timing and spacing of pregnancies, African Americans were concerned that oral contraception was “just another tool in the white man’s e" orts to curtail the Black population” (Roberts). Simultaneous public debates about the eugenics movement and research agendas focused on doc- umenting the inferiority of immigrants and people of color provided reason for African Americans to believe that racial genocide was part of the explanation for the widespread availability of oral contraceptives. Within the black community, opinions were split, with many African American women welcoming access to a tool for reproductive control; however, other African American feminist activists, such as Toni Cade in her 1969 essay “# e Pill: Genocide or Liberation?,” drew attention to the lack of resources for women raising children: abysmal family leave policies; gendered divisions of labor around childrearing; abortion fatal- ities; and employment discrimination as framing the conversation for African American women around the use of the pill. What this history and ongoing practice reveals is not just the vexed relationship between African American women and birth control, but the critical importance of recognizing multiple identity factors and intragroup di" erences that will enrich and provide a ! ner-grained understanding of complex issues like those studied by feminist scholars—in this case, reproductive justice.

INTERSECTIONALITY 175

Case Study: 2016 Presidential Election # e 2016 U.S. presidential election was characterized by a contentious campaign, an outcome not predicted by most news pundits, and a resul- tant scramble by media commentators and scholars to make sense of what was for many an unexpected result. # e two major political party candidates were positioned as polar opposites: the Republican candidate Donald Trump, a real estate mogul, reality TV star, and self-professed “political outsider” with no prior experience in government work and the Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, with an extensive record of government service, a legal background, and leadership at the national and international level.

With polls showing Clinton in the lead up to the day of the election, her supporters eagerly anticipated her victory, using the hashtag #Imwith- her and creating a Facebook group, “Pantsuit Nation,” which garnered over 1 million members who shared stories of advocating individually and publicly for inclusive values and empowerment of marginalized groups. Similar zeal was attributed to supporters of Donald Trump, whose campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” positioned him as a “change” candidate who would break from the social, political, and policy work of the sitting president, Barack Obama. Further, some media headlines and punditry framed Trump supporters in terms of their race, class, and gender demographics, with the New York Times characterizing Trump’s election as “a decisive demonstration of power by a largely over- looked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters who felt that the promise of the United States had slipped their grasp amid decades of globalization and multiculturalism” (Flegenheimer and Barbaro). ! e Guardian wrote “the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump’s fan base show up in amazing numbers for the candidate, ! lling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers” (Frank) while ! e Atlantic asserted “[t]he billionaire developer is building a blue-collar foundation” (Brownstein). # ese demographic analyses, especially those focused on gender lines, ultimately failed to have predictive or explana- tory power when the votes were tallied on November 8, 2016. Analysis of the election results focused on a single axis (such as gender, class, or race) proves inadequate to a full explanation of the factors that shaped

176 INTERSECTIONALITY

the results of the election. As Amanda Martinez observes in Women’s Stud- ies in Communication , “[w]e can assume little about women as a voting constituency, but we can enrich our understanding of women by centering intersectionalities that meaningfully and critically interrogate important di" erences” (Martinez 147). Single-axis lenses may lend themselves to easy generalizations about the election, but do not create an accurate account of who voted how and why, and who didn’t vote at all.

Early accounts of the election focused heavily on analyzing the election results in ways suggesting that women as a collective group supported the ! rst female presidential candidate for a major politi- cal party, while rhetoric surrounding hostility to globalism, economic decline, and multiculturalism drove men to support Trump. On ! rst glance, this might seem true:

Table 4.5 Presidential Election Exit Polls, by Race and Gender Voter demographic and percentage support:

Black men Black women

Latinx men

Latinx women

White men

White women

Trump 13% 4% 32% 25% 62% 52% Clinton 82% 94% 63% 69% 31% 37% Data from www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

Table 4.4 All 2016 Presidential Election Exit Polls, CNN Gender Clinton Trump Other/No Answer Male: 47% 41% 52% 7% Female: 53% 54% 41% 5% Data from www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

A more ! ne-grained analysis, however, reveals the ways that race, educational attainment, social class, and gender intersect to shape vot- ing patterns.

What becomes apparent here is the fact that a majority of white women voters supported Trump, challenging the narrative of widespread

INTERSECTIONALITY 177

Table 4.6 2016 Presidential Election Exit Polls, Whites and Educational Attainment White women college graduates

White women non college

White men college grad

White men non college grad

Clinton 51% 34% 39% 23% Trump 44% 61% 53% 71% Data from www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls

support by women for Clinton as a candidate; women of color had far greater levels of support for Clinton.

A further analysis bears out the role of education, race, and gender as they intersect, with some data con! rming the prevailing narrative and others challenging it; for example, the numbers do become more striking when education is factored in, with non-college-educated men supporting Trump at a rate of 71 percent—here, too, the gap widens for women, with a clear majority of white women without a college degree supporting Trump at 61 percent.

In addition, voter income—assumed to be a factor in terms of voter support for the two candidates’ economic, domestic policy, and foreign policy platforms—proves to be negligible in terms of dictating whether a clear majority of voters support one candidate or the other. High- income voters supported each candidate at literally the same rate—47 percent, while lower-income and middle-class voters di" ered by just 4 percent in their support for the two candidates.

Last, it is as important to pay equal attention to those who chose not to vote or were excluded from voting as to those who did cast votes. In the 2016 election, a single-axis analysis of non-voters that attributes voter dissatisfaction with candidates or overall apathy to their decision not to vote is inadequate, as it fails to account for dramatic di" erences when looking at the relationship between race and voting status.

Comparing data between the 2012 and 2016 elections also yields more nuanced results. In the 2012 election, 13 percent of people who reported not voting cited dissatisfaction with candidates as their primary reason (Lopez and Flores). When this data is further broken out by race, however, we see a big gap, with white non-voters at 15 percent and black non-voters at 3 percent in the 2012 election. # is shows that black non-voters were

Table 4.7 2016 Presidential Election Nonvoter Dissatisfaction with Candidates or Campaign Issues Widespread across Demographic Groups Among registered voters who did not vote, % who said not liking the candidates or campaign issues was main reason they did not vote

2012 2016 Di" All 13 25 +12

Men 14 25 +11 Women 12 24 +13

White 15 26 +11 Black 3 19 +16 Hispanic 9 25 +16 Asian 8 21 +14

Millennial 11 24 +13 Generation X 12 27 +15 Boomer 17 27 +10 Silent/Greatest 11 19 +9

U.S. born 13 25 +12 Foreign born 8 22 +14 Less than high school grad 12 23 +12 High school graduate 13 24 +11 Some college 14 26 +13 College+ 11 25 +14

Northeast 12 24 +12 Midwest 16 28 +12 South 12 24 +12 West 11 24 +14 Note: Whites, blacks and Asians include only non-Hispanics. Hispanics are of any race. “Some college” includes those with two-year degrees. Source: Pew Research Center analysis of the Current Population Survey, November Supplements for 2012 and 2016 www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/dislike-of-candidates-or-campaign-issues-was-most- common-reason-for-not-voting-in-2016/ft_17-06-01_nonvoters_demographics/

INTERSECTIONALITY 179

far less likely than white non-voters to stay home from the polls because of the perceived quality of the candidates.

By contrast, the 3 percent of registered black voters who did not vote in 2012 because of dissatisfaction with the candidates rose to 19 percent in 2016. However, this percentage did not reach the overall non-voting because of candidate dissatisfaction total of 26 percent. What this sug- gests is that white registered voter dissatisfaction seems to have had a stronger role in their decision not to participate in the election than it did for non-voting registered voters of color. Other analyses have looked at overall changes in voter turnout, broken down by race, with the ! nding that whites overall turned out in larger numbers in the 2016 election, as did Latinos, but black turnout fell by 4.7 percent compared to the 2012 election (Fraga et al.).

In short, it is important to be wary of election analyses that o" er reductive pronouncements based on single-axis perspectives. # is is especially true for the 2016 presidential election. As Allison Hurst writes, “who really put Trump into the White House? # e short answer is, many of us did.”

End of Chapter Elements Evaluating Prior Knowledge 1. What previous uses have you heard of the term “intersections”

or “intersect”? What other commonplace uses are there of these terms? What connotations or associations do you have with the term? Do these associations help you think more about this discipline-specific use of the term? In other words, how do those “commonsense” understandings of intersections help to amplify, elaborate, or illuminate your understanding of the material in this chapter?

2. Consider previous learning you’ve done in an educational context which may or may not explicitly have focused on gender, women, or power and privilege; for example, courses on history, in literature, politics and government, or psychology may address relevant topics. Can you identify any course materials, readings, lectures, or topics

180 INTERSECTIONALITY

that used an intersectional approach? If not, explain how your learn- ing about that topic would have been enriched by using an inter- sectional lens.

Application Exercises 1. Watch the following clip from MTV’s Braless , in which Franch-

esca Ramsey and Laci Green discuss intersectional feminism: www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-nmxnmt_XU. A few minutes into the clip, they name three feminist issues (equal pay, birth control and abortion access, and street harassment) and then succinctly explain how an intersectional approach to the issue differs from a non-intersectional approach. Choose another issue from the list below and describe what a non-intersectional or single-axis approach to the issue looks like, as opposed to an intersectional approach. a. “Staying at home” versus working outside the home for pay b. Gender violence c. Breastfeeding d. Beauty and body standards e. Mass incarceration f. Eating disorders g. Homelessness

2. Consider an area of your own interest or expertise (this could be a hobby, an academic major, or an important co-curricular activity you engage in), and identify an important issue, question, or controversy within that area of interest. How might an intersectional approach that accounts for multiple overlapping identities help you approach that issue? Share your findings with a classmate.

3. Choose a favorite film genre and screen at least three films in that genre. Take note of the number of women characters, the type of women characters, and relevant identity factors—marital status, educational attainment, race, class, sexual orientation. What con- clusions can you draw about “women in X genre” of film based on your analysis? How does an intersectional approach help you with that analysis?

INTERSECTIONALITY 181

Skills Assessments 1. In 2014, two different women (one American and one Australian)

made headlines when photos circulated online of them breast- feeding their babies while wearing cap and gown at their college graduations. Though the two images shared many similarities, the online response to them differed in significant ways. After reading about the two photos (www.buzzfeed.com/simoncrerar/breastfeed ing-student-goes-viral?utm_term=.ftJLwaAkw#.yc2qLk5YL and www.today.com/parents/breast-feeding-moms-college-gradu ation-photo-stirs-controversy-2D79780389) write a short essay in which you employ an intersectional lens to consider why the two photos received different responses.

2. Locate the following two articles through a Google search and develop an analysis in which you identity a) how successful the research study was at using an intersectional approach and b) how you would revise the study protocol or findings to be more intersectional. • Yong, Ed, “XY Bias: How Male Biology Students See # eir

Female Peers,” ! e Atlantic , February 16, 2016. • Rivera, Lauren and Andras Tilcsik, “Research: How Subtle Class

Cues Can Back! re on Your Resume,” Harvard Business Review , December 21 2016.

3. Read Lisa Wade’s brief discussion of the results of a 2015 sur- vey of women working in STEM fields (https://thesocietypages. org/socimages/2015/07/02/nearly-half-of-black-and-latina- stem-workers-mistaken-for-janitors-and-assistants/) and analyze the findings. What have you have learned in this chapter (and in previous chapters) that would help you make sense of these findings? Be sure to refer to specific concepts and terms in your response.

Discussion Questions 1. In her classic essay “There Is No Hierarchy of Oppressions,” Audre

Lorde points to a local effort to censor LGBTQ content in works in school libraries. As an African American, she asserts,

182 INTERSECTIONALITY

I know that I cannot a" ord the luxury of ! ghting one form of oppression only. I cannot a" ord to believe that freedom from intolerance is the right of only one particular group. And I can- not a" ord to choose between the fronts on which I must battle these forms of discrimination. And when they appear to destroy me, it will not be long before they appear to destroy you.

Having read Chapter 4, how do you interpret Lorde’s assertions? Reflect on how Lorde’s comments elaborate on one or two of the chapter concepts.

2. Revisit the chapter case study on the 2016 presidential election, this time looking at the candidates rather than voter demographics through an intersectional lens. You might look not just at the major party can- didates—Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump—but other contenders in the primary such as Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio, Bill Richardson, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, or Jeb Bush. In what ways do you see race, social class, gender, or sexuality factoring into the campaign strategies, platforms embraced by candidates, or media representation?

3. In Chapter 4’s opening illustration on breastfeeding through an intersectional lens, we often use gendered language when discuss- ing breastfeeding, referring to mothers and of course breasts. But there is a growing recognition that not all parents who give birth identify as women, and some of those people may not have breasts. A recent article in The Atlantic , “What It’s Like to Chestfeed,” dis- cusses this issue. Find the article here: www.theatlantic.com/health/ archive/2016/08/chestfeeding/497015/. After reading it, please con- sider the following questions: how and where could the experience of these transmasculine parents be incorporated into the textbook discussion? And what are the implications of moving away from using gendered language when discussing infant feeding practices?

Writing Prompts 1. In 2012, then-15-year-old tennis player Taylor Townsend (an Afri-

can American female) won the Australian Open junior title and was the top-ranked junior player in the world. Later that same year, however, the U.S. Tennis Association strongly discouraged her from

INTERSECTIONALITY 183

competing in the U.S. Open Junior Tennis Tournament, citing their concerns about her lack of physical conditioning. Thinking about the discussions in this chapter, consider the following questions: what does her experience reveal about the racial, gender, and class politics of the sport of women’s tennis? In what ways can you “read” Townsend’s experience through an intersectional lens that considers identity as well as institutional structures?

Figure 4.5 Tennis Player Taylor Townsend Source: AP Photo/Darko Vojinovic

2. In June 2013, the World Health Organization released a report on the prevalence of physical and sexual violence against women glob- ally. Review the key findings of the report “Global and Regional Estimates of Violence Against Women: Prevalence and Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence and Non-partner Sexual Violence” 2 (www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/ 9789241564625/en/) and conduct an intersectional analysis. What identity factors gesture toward or account for women’s experiences? What policy interventions seem most promising?

184 INTERSECTIONALITY

3. A number of studies have documented the fact that race plays a big role in online dating, with some groups receiving more atten- tion, in the form of messages, swipes, etc., than others. Do some Internet research on the subject to familiarize yourself with some of these studies (several are included in the suggested readings below), and then write an essay in which you summarize and analyze what (if anything) these studies say about how race intersects with gen- der and sexual identity to affect online dating. A few questions to consider: are queer online dating apps marked by racial hierarchies? If so, are the patterns the same as for heterosexual dating apps? If they differ, how?

4. Social media provides unprecedented opportunities for users to make identities important to them visible. For example, what has been referred to as Black Twitter is a cluster of trending hashtags that emerge in particular by black Twitter users, a population which is nearly double (proportionally) the African American population (13% of the U.S. population vs. an estimated 25% of Twitter users). Similarly, #rainbowrollcall offers a strategy for queer Twitter users to categorize their tweets, while #Icantbreathe and #blacklivesmatter are two hashtags intended to show solidarity with victims of state violence against African Americans. Explore some of the trends in hashtags that tweeters opt to use to “mark” their social media contri- butions in specific ways and write an essay about your findings.

Notes 1 http://transform.childbirthconnection.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/LTMIII_

Pregnancy-and-Birth.pdf 2 www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2013/violence_against_women_201306

20/en/

Works Cited Abutaleb, Yasmeen. “Nudged by Hospitals, More U.S. Moms Are Breastfeeding:

CDC.” Reuters . 31 July 2013. www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-health-breastfeed ing-idUSBRE96U18E20130731. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Adair, Vivyan. “Branded with Infamy: Inscriptions of Poverty and Class in the United States.” Signs , vol. 27, no. 2, 2002, pp. 451–471.

INTERSECTIONALITY 185

Bianchi, Suzanne M., Liana C. Sayer, Melissa A. Milkie, and John P. Robinson. “House- work: Who Did, Does, or Will Do It, and How Much Does It Matter?” Social Forces , vol. 91, no. 1, 2012, pp. 55–63.

Brownstein, Ronald. “# e Billionaire Candidate and His Blue-Collar Following.” ! e At- lantic . 11 September 2015. www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-bil lionaire-candidate-and-his-blue-collar-following/432783/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Cade, Toni. “# e Pill: Genocide or Liberation?” In ! e Black Woman: An Anthology . Ed. Toni Cade. Signet, 1970.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Births: Method of Delivery.” 13 January 2013. www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/delivery.htm. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Childcare Aware. Parents and the High Cost of Childcare . 2016 Report. 21 June 2017. http://usa.childcareaware.org/advocacy-public-policy/resources/research/costof care/. Accessed 7 July 2017.

CNN Politics. “Exit Polls.” 23 November 2016. www.cnn.com/election/results/exit- polls. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Collins, Patricia Hill. Black Feminist ! ought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment . Psychology Press, 2000.

——. “Toward a New Vision: Race, Class, and Gender as Categories of Analysis and Connection.” In Oppression, Privilege, and Resistance: ! eoretical Perspectives on Rac- ism, Sexism, and Heterosexism . Eds. Lisa Heldke and Peg O’Connor. McGraw Hill, 2004, pp. 529–543.

Combahee River Collective. “A Black Feminist Statement.” In Feminist ! eory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives . Eds. Carole R. McCann and Seung-kyung Kim. 3rd edition. Routledge, 2013, pp. 116–122.

Connell, Raewyn. “# e Social Organization of Masculinity.” Feminist ! eory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives. Eds. Carole R. McCann and Seung-kyung Kim. 3rd edition. Routledge, 2013, pp. 252–263.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé W. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review , vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1241–1299.

——. “Why Intersectionality Can’t Wait.” ! e Washington Post . 24 September 2015. David, Deborah, and Robert Brannon, eds. ! e Forty-Nine Percent Majority: ! e Male

Sex Role . Addison-Wesley, 1976. Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. Critical Race ! eory: An Introduction . New York

University Press, 2012. Dill, Bonnie # ornton, and Ruth Enid Zambrana. “Critical # inking about Inequality:

An Emerging Lens.” Feminist ! eory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives . Eds. Car- ole R. McCann and Seung-kyung Kim. 3rd edition. Routledge, 2013, pp. 176–186.

Duke, Lisa. “Black in a Blonde World: Race and Girls’ Interpretations of the Feminine Ideal in Teen Magazines.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly , vol. 77, no. 2, 2000, pp. 367–392.

Flegenheimer, Matt, and Michael Barbaro. “Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment.” New York Times . 9 November 2016.

Fraga, Bernard L., Sean McElwee, Jesse Rhodes, and Brian Scha" ner. “Why Did Trump Win? More Whites—and Fewer Blacks—Actually Voted.” ! e Washington Post . 8 May 2017.

186 INTERSECTIONALITY

Frank, # omas. “Millions of Ordinary Americans Support Donald Trump. Here’s Why.” ! e Guardian . 7 March 2016. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/ mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Freedman, Estelle. No Turning Back: ! e History of Feminism and the Future of Women . Ballantine Books, 2002.

Frisby, Cynthia M., and Erika Engstrom. “Always a Bridesmaid, Never a Bride: Portrayals of Women of Color in Bridal Magazines.” Media Report to Women , vol. 34, no. 4, 2006, pp. 10–14.

Geraghty, Sheela R., Kiran Saluja, and Meredith Merchant. “Breastfeeding Disparities: Challenges and Solutions.” ICAN: Infant, Child, and Adolescent Nutrition , vol. 4, no. 4, 2012, pp. 207–214.

Gibbons, Luz, et al. “# e Global Numbers and Costs of Additionally Needed and Un- necessary Caesarean Sections Performed per Year: Overuse as a Barrier to Univer- sal Coverage.” World Health Report 2010. Background Paper (30) . 2010.

Givhan, Robin. “Can Obama Elevate the Look of Presidential Downtime? We Can Only Hope.” Washington Post . 26 July 2009.

Goldberg, Abbie E. “‘Doing’ and ‘Undoing’ Gender: # e Meaning and Division of Housework in Same-Sex Couples.” Journal of Family ! eory and Review , vol. 5, no. 2, 2013, pp. 85–104.

Grose, Jessica. “Why Does the Internet Hate Marissa Mayer’s Baby?” Slate . 30 Novem- ber 2012. www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/11/30/yahoo_ceo_marissa_mayer_ calls_her_baby_easy_cue_the_internet_rage.html. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Grzanka, Patrick R., ed. Intersectionality: A Foundations and Frontiers Reader . Westview Press, 2014.

Guy-Sheftall, Beverly, ed. Words of Fire: An Anthology of African-American Feminist ! ought . New Press, 1995.

Hewlett, Sylvia Ann. O" -Ramps and On-Ramps: Keeping Talented Women on the Road to Success . Harvard Business School Press, 2007.

hooks, bell. Feminist ! eory from Margin to Center . South End Press, 1984. Howard, Greg. “Richard Sherman and the Plight of the Conquering Negro.” Deadspin .

20 January 2014. http://deadspin.com/richard-sherman-and-the-plight-of-the- conquering-negro-1505060117. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Hull, Gloria T., Patricia Bell Scott, and Barbara Smith. All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women’s Studies. # e Feminist Press, 1982.

Hurst, Allison. “Have We Been Had? Why Talking about the Working-Class Vote for Trump Hurts Us.” Working-Class Perspectives . 12 June 2017.

Katharine Dexter McCormick Library. “# e Birth Control Pill: A History.” Planned Parenthood . 15 August 2014.

Kivel, Paul. “# e ‘Act-Like-A-Man’ Box.” Men’s Lives . Eds. Michael S. Kimmel and Michael A. Messner. 7th edition. Pearson, 2007, pp. 148–150.

Lopez, Gustavo, and Antonio Flores. “Dislike of Candidates or Campaign Issues Was Most Common Reason for Not Voting in 2016.” Fact Tank. Pew Research Center. 1 June 2017.

Lorde, Audre. “# ere Is No Hierarchy of Oppressions.” LGBT Resource Center . UC San Diego. https://lgbt.ucsd.edu/education/oppressions.html. Accessed 5 July 2017.

INTERSECTIONALITY 187

March of Dimes. “Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Birth Outcomes.” 27 February 2015. www.marchofdimes.org/March-of-Dimes-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparities_feb- 27-2015.pdf.

Martinez, Amanda. “Monstrosities in the 2016 Presidential Election and Beyond: Cen- tering Nepantla and Intersectional Feminist Activism.” Women’s Studies in Com- munication , vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 145–149.

Martinez, Elizabeth. “La Chicana.” In Feminist ! eory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives. Eds. Carole R. McCann and Seung-kyung Kim. 3rd edition. Routledge, 2013, pp. 113–115.

Miller, Claire Cain. “More Men Are Taking ‘Women’s’ Jobs, Usually Disadvantaged Men.” New York Times . 9 March 2017.

Moraga, Cherrie, and Gloria Anzaldua. ! e is Bridge Called My Back, Writings by Radical Women of Color. 4th edition. SUNY Press, 2015.

Mukherjee, Sy. “For Low-Income and Minority Women, Breastfeeding Is Often Easier Said # an Done.” ! inkProgress . 1 August 2013. https://thinkprogress.org/for-low- income-and-minority-women-breastfeeding-is-often-easier-said-than-done- 63381fb7f95e. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Norris, Michele. “Why Black Women, Infants, Lag in Birth Outcomes.” National Public Radio. 8 July 2011. www.npr.org/2011/07/08/137652226/-the-race-gap. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Peck, Emily. “Under Fire, Net$ ix Defends Lopsided Parental Leave Policy.” Hu# ngton Post . 2 September 2015. www.hu& ngtonpost.com/entry/net$ ix-parental-leave- policy_us_55e7239ce4b0aec9f3556d1d. Accessed 7 July 2017.

“People and Events: Margaret Sanger.” PBS.org. ! e Pill . 2001. Petchesky, Barry. “Richard Sherman Explains What People Mean When # ey Call

Him a # ug.” Deadspin . 22 January 2014. http://deadspin.com/richard-sher- man-explains-what-people-mean-when-they-cal-1506821800. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Pew Research Center. “Nonvoter Dissatisfaction with Candidates or Campaign Issues Widespread across Demographic Groups.” 1 June 2017.

Reich, Robert. “Why ‘Family Leave’ Policies like Net$ ix’s Are a Sham.” Christian Sci- ence Monitor . 17 August 2015.

Roberts, Dorothy. “Forum: Black Women and the Pill.” Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 32, no. 2, 2000.

Roth, Louise Marie, and Megan M. Henley. “Unequal Motherhood: Racial-Ethnic and Socioeconomic Disparities in Cesarean Sections in the United States.” Social Prob- lems , vol. 59, no. 2, 2012.

Sakala, Carol, and Maureen Corry. “Evidence-Based Maternity Care: What It Is and What It Can Achieve.” Milbank Memorial Fund. 2008. www.nationalpartnership. org/research-library/maternal-health/evidence-based-maternity-care.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Smith, Barbara. “Racism and Women’s Studies.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 48–49.

Spelman, Elizabeth. Inessential Women: Problems of Exclusion in Feminist ! ought . Bea- con Press, 1988.

Swisher, Kara. “Physically Together: Here’s the Internal Yahoo No-Work-From-Home Memo for Remote Workers and Maybe More.” All ! ings . 22 February 2013.

188 INTERSECTIONALITY

http://allthingsd.com/20130222/physically-together-heres-the-internal-yahoo- no-work-from-home-memo-which-extends-beyond-remote-workers/. Accessed 7 July 2017.

# ompson, Becky. “Multiracial Feminism: Recasting the Chronology of Second Wave Feminism.” In Feminist ! eory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives . Eds. Carole R. McCann and Seung-kyung Kim. 3rd edition. Routledge, 2013, pp. 56–67.

“Timeline: # e Pill, 1951–1990.” PBS.org. ! e Pill . 2002. Truth, Sojourner. “Ain’t I a Woman.” Modern History Sourcebook. Fordham Univer-

sity. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/sojtruth-woman.asp. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Tuchman, Gaye. “Introduction: # e Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass Media.” In Hearth and Home: Images of Women in the Mass Media . Eds. Gaye Tuchman, Arlene Kaplan Daniels, and James Benet. Oxford University Press, 1978, pp. 3–38.

United States Department of Labor. “Fact Sheet #28: # e Family and Medical Leave Act.” Wage and Hour Division . 25 July 2013. Web.

U.S. Census Bureau. “State and County Quick Facts.” 11 June 2014. www.census.gov/ quickfacts/. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Vallas, Rebecca, and Shawn Fremstad. “Disability Is a Cause and Consequence of Poverty.” Talk Poverty . 19 September 2014. https://talkpoverty.org/2014/09/19/ disability-cause-consequence-poverty/. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Wade, Lisa. “Nearly Half of Black and Latina Scientists Mistaken for Janitors or Assistants.” Sociological Images . 2 July 2015. https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/ 2015/07/02/nearly-half-of-black-and-latina-stem-workers-mistaken-for-janitors- and-assistants/. Accessed 6 July 6 2017.

Wagner, Kyle. “# e Word # ug Was Uttered 625 Times on TV Monday.” Deadspin . 21 January 2014. http://deadspin.com/the-word-thug-was-uttered-625-times- on-tv-yesterday-1506098319. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Wendell, Susan. ! e Rejected Body . Routledge, 1996. Wolf, Naomi. ! e Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women . Harper

Collins, 1991. Working Mother Magazine. “Working Mother Best Companies for Hourly Workers:

Executive Summary 2010.” Working Mother Magazine. 2010.

Suggested Readings A Matter of Life and Death: Fatal Violence Against Transgender People in America 2016 .

Human Rights Campaign and Trans People of Color Coalition. 2016. Babcock, Richard. “Sterilization: Coercing Consent.” Nation . 12 January 1974. “Breastfeeding.” Women’s Health USA . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

2010. Web. Carlson, Nicholas. “Marissa Mayer Had a Baby Boy!” Business Insider . 1 October

2012. Web. Chow, Kat and Elise Hu. “Odds Favor White Men, Asian Women on Dating App.”

National Public Radio: Code Switch . 30 November 2013. Curington, Celeste, Ken-Hou Lin, and Jennifer Lundquist. “Dating Partners Don’t

Always Prefer ‘# eir Own Kind’: Some Multiracial Daters Get Bonus Points in the Dating Game.” ! e Society Pages . 9 July 2015.

INTERSECTIONALITY 189

De la Cretaz, Britini. “5 Reasons You Should Care About Breastfeeding Even If You’re Not a Nursing Parent.” Everyday Feminism. 9 August 2015. http://everydayfem inism.com/2015/08/why-care-about-breastfeeding/. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Epstein, Rebecca, Jamilia J. Blake, and # alia Gonzalez. “Girlhood Interrupted: # e Erasure of Black Girls’ Childhood.” Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Inequality. 2017.

Fein, Sara, Lawrence Grummer-Strawn, and Raju Tonse. “Chapter 3: Infant Feed- ing.” Infant Feeding Practices Study II . Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/data/ifps/results/ch3/table3–4.htm. Accessed 6 July 2017.

Freedman, Estelle. No Turning Back: ! e History of Feminism and the Future of Women . Ballantine Books, 2002.

Ginty, Molly. “Detroit Team Shrinks Breastfeeding Disparities.” Women’s E-News. 22 June 2015. http://womensenews.org/2015/06/detroit-team-shrinks-breast feeding-disparities/. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Grzanka, Patrick R., ed. Intersectionality: A Foundations and Frontiers Reader . Westview Press, 2014.

Guy-Sheftall, Beverly, ed. Words of Fire: An Anthology of African-American Feminist ! ought . New Press, 1995.

Hang, Maykao Yangblongsua, and Tru Hang # ao. “Hmong Women’s Peace.” In Trans- forming a Rape Culture . Eds. Emilie Buchwald, Pamela R. Fletcher, and Martha Roth. 2nd edition. Milkweed Editions, 2005, pp. 201–210.

Harrison, Je" . “C-Sections a Measure of Ethnic, Economic Disparities.” 13 April 2012. https://sbs.arizona.edu/news/c-sections-measure-ethnic-economic-disparities. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Heymann, Jody, Alison Earle, and Je" rey Hayes. “# e Work, Family, and Equity Index: How Does the United States Measure Up?” McGill University Institute for Health and Social Policy. Project on Global Working Families. 2008.

Hill Collins, Patricia. Black Feminist ! ought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment . Routledge, 1991.

hooks, bell. Feminist ! eory: From Margin to Center . South End Press, 1984. Hull, Gloria T., Patricia Bell Scott, and Barbara Smith. All the Women Are White, All

the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women’s Studies . # e Feminist Press, 1982.

International Labour Organization. “More # an 120 Nations Provide Paid Maternity Leave.” 16 February 1998. Web.

Jacknowitz, Alison. “Increasing Breastfeeding Rates: Do Changing Demographics Explain # em?” Women’s Health Issues , vol. 17, 2006, pp. 84–92. Web.

Law, Victoria. “A Look at How Media Writes Women of Color.” Bitch Magazine . 17 November 2014. www.bitchmedia.org/post/how-media-writes-woc-or-doesnt- twitter-conversation. Accessed 5 July 2017.

Marks, Lara. Sexual Chemistry: A History of the Contraceptive Pill . Yale University Press, 2001.

Moraga, Cherrie, and Gloria Anzaldua. ! is Bridge Called My Back, Writings by Radical Women of Color . 4th edition . SUNY Press, 2015.

Mukherjee, Sy. “For Low-Income and Minority Women, Breastfeeding Is Often Easier Said # an Done.” ! inkProgress . 1 August 2013.

190 INTERSECTIONALITY

Mula, Rick. “Wonky Wednesday: Racism in Gay Online Dating.” National LGBTQ Task Force . No date.

Planned Parenthood. “Issue Brief: # e Birth Control Pill: A History.” Planned Parent- hood . March 2013.

Quinlan, Casey. “New Data Shows the School-to-Prison Pipeline Starts as Early as Preschool.” ! ink Progress . 7 June 2016.

Schulte, Brigid. “What Gay Couples Get About Relationships # at Straight Couples Often Don’t.” ! e Washington Post . 4 June 2015.

Simms, Margaret, Karina Fortuny, and Everett Henderson. “Racial and Ethnic Disparities among Low-Income Families.” LIWF Fact Sheet. Urban Institute . August 2009.

Sokolo" , Natalie J. “Domestic Violence at the Crossroads: Violence Against Poor Women and Women of Color.” Women’s Studies Quarterly , vol. 32, no. 3/4, 2004, pp. 139–147.

Solis, Marie. “Meet Moya Bailey, the Black Woman Who Created the Term ‘Misogynoir.” Mic . 30 August 2016.

Solod, Lisa. “Marissa Mayer and the Great Class Divide.” Hu# ngton Post . 27 February 2013. Web.

“# e School-to-Prison Pipeline.” Teaching Tolerance , vol. 43, 2013. Time Magazine . “A Brief History of Birth Control.” Time . 3 May 2010. Web.

191

5 Feminist Praxis

Figure 5.1 Amanda Nguyen Source: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBvICshXsAAi30K.jpg

192 FEMINIST PRAXIS

Opening Illustration Amanda Nguyen is a sexual assault survivor. She is also the founder of a national nonpro! t called Rise, which, according to its website, is “spear- heading the e" ort to enshrine the rights of survivors of sexual assault in law.” As a survivor of sexual assault, Nguyen quickly realized that “the system meant to protect and deliver justice is broken” (Arter). After experiencing sexual assault in 2013 while a college student in Massa- chusetts, Nguyen went to the hospital, where medical sta" completed a rape kit, collecting evidence that could potentially be used to prosecute the perpetrator. At the time, however, Massachusetts law stipulated that her rape kit could be destroyed after six months unless she ! led an extension (which she would have to do again every subsequent six months), in spite of the fact that the statute of limitations for pressing charges is ! fteen years. Nguyen astutely understood that the “six-month rule makes me live my life by date of rape” (Bess), and upon investiga- tion, she found that other states didn’t have that requirement. She came to the realization that “[j]ustice shouldn’t be dependent on geography. It’s completely unconscionable that a survivor in one state would have a completely di" erent set of rights than a survivor in another state.” More broadly, as Neesha Arter puts it, Nguyen came to believe that “current legal protections were insu# cient and in complete disarray.” From that ! rst-hand experience of victimization (and subsequent revictimization by the state), Nguyen began an intense process of research and self- education about the issue. From there came the idea for Rise and for a bill of rights for survivors of sexual assault.

With the help of Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and many other legislators (the bill had 51 co-sponsors, both Democrat and Republican), the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Rights Act was introduced in Congress in February of 2016, passed in September of 2016, and signed into law by President Barack Obama the next month. $ e bill was carefully crafted to receive bipartisan support, and indeed passed unani- mously, an extremely rare occurrence; as Nguyen writes in an open letter on the Rise website, “[b]efore Rise came along, only 20 bills, or 0.016% in modern United States history, had passed through Congress with unanimous support. Ours became the 21st.” $ e bill a# rms survivors’

FEMINIST PRAXIS 193

right to not be charged a fee to have forensic evidence collected after a rape; their right to not have their rape kit destroyed for 20 years or until the statute of limitations runs out, whichever comes ! rst; and the right to be informed of the results of their rape kit, as well as a copy of any ! led police reports relating to the assault (Cauterucci).

While passage of the bill represents a huge victory, it is ultimately only the ! rst step in a larger struggle. As of 2017, Nguyen and members of Rise are engaged in the process of introducing similar legislation in all 50 states of the U.S., because most sexual assault and rape cases are prosecuted at the state level, rather than at the federal level. Nguyen asserts,

[t]his movement is grounded in the belief that the voices of ordi- nary citizens matter—no matter the background, no matter the age. $ at’s why it is named Rise—to remind us that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can rise up and change the world.

Amanda Nguyen’s experience of navigating the criminal justice sys- tem in the wake of her experience of rape provides a powerful reminder of the persistence of rape culture, but the actions she has taken and the support she has received from many people and institutions shows that many are invested in upsetting and dismantling it. $ ese actions illus- trate the threshold concept in Chapter 5, feminist praxis. In this chapter, we explore the strategies that feminist activists and educators use to e" ect change that supports gender justice.

A Feminist Stance • Stresses the importance of locating oneself within structures of

privilege and oppression; • analyzes how systems of privilege and oppression operate in a num-

ber of contexts (for example, in one’s personal life and relationships, in experiences of one’s body, in societal institutions, etc.);

• prioritizes generating visions for social change and identifying strategies for bringing about that change.

194 FEMINIST PRAXIS

Why a ! reshold Concept? $ e ! eld of Women’s and Gender Studies in the United States arose out of and as a result of second-wave feminism. In fact, many early practitioners in the ! eld referred to it as the scholarly or academic arm of the women’s movement, suggesting not just that it arose from the movement, but that it was literally a part of that social movement for change. Although it is now granted that the academic ! eld and femi- nist social movements operate independently, the concept of praxis is still considered central to the ! eld. As the earlier chapters of this book have made clear, the threshold concepts of the social construction of gender, privilege and oppression, and intersectionality provide ways of seeing, thinking, and knowing that help us describe and diagnose social problems that are rooted in inequality. In this chapter, we will build on the knowledge and skills gained from the previous chapters and learn about how feminists apply their knowledge and skills in the service of tackling those problems. We will also consider whether and how we might join them.

Framing De" nitions and Related Concepts In Transforming Scholarship: Why Women’s and Gender Studies Students Are Changing ! emselves and the World , Michele Tracy Berger and Cheryl Radelo" de! ne feminist praxis as the “integration of learning with social justice” (44). As they go on to explain, for students of Wom- en’s and Gender Studies, “[p]raxis is about applying one’s knowledge to challenge oppressive systems and unequal traditions” (44). $ e same pertains to scholars in the ! eld, as Sharlene Hesse-Biber notes in her introduction to Feminist Research Practice:

[o]ne of the main goals of feminist research projects is to sup- port social justice and social transformation; these projects seek to study and to redress the many inequities and social injustices that continue to undermine and even destroy the lives of women and their families.

(3)

FEMINIST PRAXIS 195

Many instructors in the ! eld even think about their teaching as a form of praxis in which they seek to raise students’ awareness and con- sciousness of their location in systems of privilege and oppression.

Activism and praxis are related concepts but not synonymous. Praxis, the intersection of theory and practice, involves a visible and delib- erate set of actions informed by theory, by research, and by evidence. As Charlotte Bunch explains in “Not By Degrees: Feminist $ eory and Education,” theory is useful because it helps guide, and therefore strengthen, activism; without it, she argues, we run the risk of falling into the “‘any action/no action’ bind. When caught in this bind, one may go ahead with action—any action—for its own sake, or be paralyzed, taking no action for lack of a sense of what is ‘right.’” Bunch envisions a two-way street between theory and activism, in which theory guides activism, and then the knowledge gained from engaging in activism is used to revise and re! ne one’s theory. As she puts it, “[t]heory thus both grows out of and guides activism in a continuous, spiraling process.” As we saw in the Opening Illustration, the legislation that Amanda Nguyen helped write and shepherd through Congress was shaped by theory-informed research and evidence.

Many practitioners of Women’s and Gender Studies have sought to help students cultivate knowledge and skills that support their ability to link their classroom learning with their experiences outside of the class- room. $ is focus can be seen in many of the hallmarks of Women’s and Gender Studies courses; these key features of WGS courses serve as the foundation on which the threshold concept of feminist praxis is built.

• Critical thinking: although critical thinking is often identified as an important goal of a postsecondary education generally, Wom- en’s and Gender Studies places an especially high premium on critical approaches to everyday assumptions or “commonsense” understandings of the world. For example, Berger and Radeloff note that one of the most important concepts students in such programs grasp is the social construction of gender, which often involves stripping away “naturalized” ideas about men, women, gender, and sexuality, and reexamining assumptions about how

196 FEMINIST PRAXIS

gender operates both as a system and on an interpersonal level. Another example is that of privilege, oppression, and inequality. As one student wrote,

I learned that some issues I saw as personal shortcomings were actually the result of structural inequality directed at women. It also helped me to interpret the situations of other women in my family in this light. $ is was liberating, to say the least.

(Berger and Radelo" 151) Students in Women’s and Gender Studies develop the ability to

strip away and “re-see” the world, calling into question previous assumptions, a foundation of critical thinking.

• Empowerment and leadership: two interconnected features of a Wom- en’s and Gender Studies education that support feminist praxis are students’ development of empowerment and leadership. Link- ing empowerment with self-confidence, Berger and Radeloff note that being empowered means being able to stand up for oneself, to challenge prevailing assumptions, and to act on one’s convictions. Shrewsbury defines the women’s studies classroom as built on a foundation of empowerment, or what she describes as a “concept of power as energy, capacity, and potential rather than as domina- tion” (10). By developing self-confidence and becoming empowered to have a vision and act on that vision, students educated in Women’s and Gender Studies can exercise leadership, but a particular kind of leadership that involves collaboration, responsibility, and respect. Berger and Radeloff identify the development of negotiation skills, responsibility, presentation abilities, and collaborative learning as outgrowths of a feminist education.

• Community and community engagement: Carolyn Shrewsbury identi- fied a sense of community in her 1993 essay “What Is Feminist Pedagogy?” as key to the feminist classroom, but it’s also an impor- tant dimension of feminist praxis—developing a sense of communal identity, shared purpose, and collective values and then translating that into action in the service of those shared goals are central to the notion of community engagement. Many instructors in Wom- en’s and Gender Studies seek to help students develop a sense of

FEMINIST PRAXIS 197

community identity and “build connections and relationships inside and outside of [the] workplace, family, and neighborhoods” (Berger and Radeloff 161).

• Connecting knowledge and experiences and applying knowledge for social transformation: Amy Levin, in her 2007 report to the National Women’s Studies Association summarizing assessment practices in national programs, identified the application of academic knowl- edge to the world outside the classroom as an important learning goal in WGS courses. Many Women’s and Gender Studies class- rooms incorporate an “action research” or consciousness-raising project in which students are asked to do original research, engage in an advocacy or activism project, or in some other way connect the academic learning they do with the world outside the classroom. As Levin notes, successful students in Women’s and Gender Studies courses are able to take what they learned—whether it’s how to use an intersectional lens to approach a complex problem, how to apply standpoint theory, or a shifting understanding of gender as socially constructed—and integrate that knowledge with their own lived experiences and that of others. A current example of this kind of focus is the Know Your IX project, which is a campaign designed to both educate college students about their rights under Title IX, and empower them to advocate for change on their campuses based on what they learn about their school’s compliance with Title IX (or lack thereof ).

But moving from the broad and general to the concrete and speci! c, we can ask the question, how to get started with this kind of think- ing and action? In Chapter 1 of Fight Like a Girl: How to Be a Fearless Feminist , Megan Seely lays out twelve action steps in a kind of how-to guide for those new to activism. $ e ! rst three are: 1) De! ne the issue that you want to raise awareness on; 2) Work with other activists, and dialogue the issue to clarify the feminist analysis of the problem and the solution; and 3) Decide what action to take (20). As a result of learn- ing about the ! rst three threshold concepts, you have been introduced to a large number of issues, and have likely read a variety of feminist perspectives on those issues. What this chapter shines a light on are the

198 FEMINIST PRAXIS

actions and strategies that can be used to tackle the issue(s). In what follows, we outline some of the di" erent approaches to activism that make up feminist praxis.

Feminist action : an event or phenomenon that raises awareness and/ or creates change on issues of patriarchy, gender systems, the inter- sectionality of identities and oppressions, and/or the overall structural inequalities experienced by women. Some examples include participat- ing in an organized event, like a march, rally, candlelight vigil, protest, or sit-in; raising awareness about a feminist issue through traditional and/ or social media; organizing a speak-out about a pressing feminist issue; hosting an ongoing book club or discussion circle to discuss books by feminist authors; calling for a boycott; hosting a bene! t to raise money for a local feminist nonpro! t agency; and creating a petition and gath- ering signatures.

Membership and participation in formal and organized activist organiza- tions : an array of organizations, agencies, commissions, and foundations exist that illustrate the principle of feminist praxis and whose advocacy emerged from a small group of dedicated activists. Organizations are varied and emerge from a wide range of local contexts and catalysts; however, organizations galvanize around a particular issue or focus. $ is can be the product of a small or large group of like-minded individuals, or the brainchild of one particularly ambitious leader. For example, the National Organization for Women (NOW) emerged from the $ ird National Conference of Commissions on the Status of Women in 1966, where a group of similarly interested professionals, activists, and other participants discussed priorities for social justice for women. Out of that conference and the leadership of writer and activist Betty Friedan, the formal, nonpro! t organization NOW was formed. Similarly, the group 9to5 originated from a small group of o# ce workers whose gatherings to discuss sexism in the workplace led to the establishment of a for- mal, nonpro! t group with a national policy agenda around workplace equity. Planned Parenthood, currently a network of public health clin- ics as well as an advocacy organization, has been around for nearly 100 years and was the product of both action and activism on the part of Margaret Sanger. More recently, INCITE!, an organization focused on combating violence against women of color, came about after a group

FEMINIST PRAXIS 199

organized a conference in 2000. $ e conference organizers were frus- trated with feminist organizations that marginalized women of color, and so sought to ! ll that gap of analysis and activism. Since then, their work has expanded to include gender nonconforming and trans people of color. $ eir structure has multiple parts: their website lists city-based grassroots chapters of INCITE!, working groups, and a# liate groups, as well as a national collective. $ ey also continue to host conferences around the country that bring together scholars, students, and activists who are engaged in analyzing, organizing, and mobilizing around issues of gendered violence against people of color. Many of these organiza- tions predate the rise of Internet activism, although they almost all now have strong online presences. For those looking to get involved in their local communities, a good place to start would be to research where you’ll ! nd the nearest chapter of NOW, 9to5, INCITE!, or Planned Parenthood.

Activism with limited capital : although large-scale, organized, and formal organizations can e" ect change in ways that exert in% uence over institutions and policies, smaller-scale and locally based activism can also bring about change in local communities. A good example of this is Shelby Knox, whose local activism on the topic of comprehensive sex education versus abstinence-only education became the subject of a PBS documentary, ! e Education of Shelby Knox. As a 15-year-old high school sophomore in a Texas high school, Knox identi! ed as a supporter of abstinence-only education and a politically conservative Southern Baptist. Over the course of the documentary period, Knox struggles to reconcile her school’s abstinence-only education with the high rates of teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease among her peers. Ultimately, Knox’s participation in a teen group consulting with local government and an unsuccessful year-long campaign to convince the local school board to discontinue its abstinence-only sex education policy leads to her self-rede! nition as a liberal Democrat. She could not accept the basic principles upon which her school’s health educa- tion curriculum was founded, and eventually continued her education in college and beyond as a political science major and now as the Director of Women’s Rights Organizing for Change.org, as well as an organizer, public speaker, and commentator.

200 FEMINIST PRAXIS

Other types of activities blend these types of activism, operating with limited capital to create a formal or informal organization. At Colby College, for example, starting in 2012, student Jonathan Kalin created “Party with Consent,” a movement that includes events and products that emerged counter to a series of fraternity-initiated apparel items labeled “Party with Sluts.” Kalin responded by organizing social gather- ings centered on critical, re% ective practice:

“I don’t know how di" erent those parties feel to students than a party that is not labeled Party With Consent, but I think that putting this language out there in the community invites people to re% ect and consider, ‘Am I doing the things I want to be doing? Is this consistent with the experience I want to have?’ I think a big part of the movement is just posing that question,” said Director of Campus Life Jed Wartman.

(Ohm)

Feminism as text : in “From a Mindset to a Movement: Feminism Since 1990,” Astrid Henry observes that “the feminism that emerged in the mid-1990s developed primarily through the publication of indi- vidually authored texts. Texts named the generation, texts energized it, and reading texts became a way of participating in the contemporary movement” (173). While written texts have always been an important part of feminism, they are uniquely central to feminists of the past 20 years, both because third-wave feminism focused less on the for- mation of face-to-face activist groups, and also because the rise of third-wave feminism roughly coincided with the explosion of Internet technologies. Today, feminist ideas continue to % ourish both in books and online on blogs and various social media sites, including Tumblr, Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. $ is has been a boon for feminism; as Henry points out, “a fourteen-year-old girl today is much more likely to discover feminism online than at her local library or bookstore. $ at means she is much more likely to discover feminism in the ! rst place” (176). $ e immediacy of the Internet has allowed feminists, especially young feminists, to respond to, analyze, and theorize about the world around them as events unfold in real-time, and to reach and engage one

FEMINIST PRAXIS 201

another in the discussion of feminist ideas instantaneously. From there, it is easy to see how the Internet has increasingly become the space in which feminist action is organized and undertaken, as will be discussed in the next section.

Online activism : feminist activism has increasingly moved online and has demonstrated that it can produce tangible results. Julie Zeilinger boldly claims that “[t]he Internet is one of the greatest things ever to happen to the modern feminist movement” (140), citing its capacity for community building, organizing, and consciousness raising in par- ticular. In terms of activism, online petitions are one prominent tactic of digital feminism. For example, a number of petitions at Change.org have resulted in “victories” for women’s rights, such as a petition to Sprint to change its fees for victims of domestic violence, 1 and another Change.org petition launched to request that the South African gov- ernment tackle the national problem of “corrective rape,” 2 or the rape of lesbians in order to convert them to heterosexuality. As a result of the petition, the South African Parliament agreed to convene a National Task Team to end the practice of “corrective” rape.

Online feminism is not without its critics, however. Slacktivism is a derisive term that has been coined to re% ect what some have critiqued as “easy” actions that can be taken through, for example, social media, and that sometimes become a substitute for what many perceive as more demanding forms of activism such as letter-writing campaigns, lobby- ing legislators, protests and rallies, or other types of advocacy. With the ease of signing online petitions, posting Facebook status updates, shar- ing links and blogs, or tweeting one’s views, slacktivist approaches have garnered skepticism about their e" ectiveness in terms of bringing about social change. Zeilinger humorously admits that it makes sense when older generations of feminists “watch us tapping away on our com- puters,” they may think, “‘Um, no, I think you’re confused. $ at’s not activism, that’s actually the ancient art of sitting on your ass’” (140).

$ ose involved with online feminist organizing see petitions as a starting point, however, rather than an end in themselves. In “Girls Tweet- ing (Not Twerking) $ eir Way to Power,” Courtney Martin refers to what is called the ladder of engagement , whereby “someone signs a peti- tion, before long they’re creating their own, then running a full-% edged

202 FEMINIST PRAXIS

campaign.” Martin makes clear that online feminist organizing should and does distinguish between short-term and long-term “wins.” Online activism is still in its early years, and those who are invested in it are currently doing the hard work of ! guring out what both its potentials and its limitations are.

Another form of online feminist activism involves the creation and circulation of hashtags on Twitter. For example, #solidarityisfor- whitewomen was created by Mikki Kendall as a way to critique the tendency of some white feminists to exclude or marginalize the issues of women of color. Writing on the blog Racialicious, blogger Lindsey Yoo argues that the hashtag “led to robust and much-needed discus- sions that unmasked the tendency of all progressive circles to work in silos instead of calling for true solidarity across multiple race and gender identities.” In this instance, the hashtag was used primarily to facilitate an internal conversation among feminists to air grievances and call for change.

As mentioned in Chapter 3, the #yesallwomen hashtag sprang up in the immediate aftermath of the Isla Vista, California shootings in late May 2014, in which a young man set out on a killing spree motivated by his hatred of women, as demonstrated in videos he posted online and in a 140-page “manifesto.” Within three days, 1.5 million tweets using the hashtag had been made. $ e #yesallwomen hashtag served the purpose of raising consciousness and awareness about the ubiquity of sexism in our culture, and gendered violence in particular, as people wrote posts expressing their experiences of living in a patriarchal cul- ture. According to Sasha Weiss, “[t]here is something about the fact that Twitter is primarily designed for speech—for short, strong, declarative utterance—that makes it an especially powerful vehicle for activism, a place of liberation.” In this way, Twitter is a forum with instant, global reach that is suited, to reference the title of a famous essay by Audre Lorde, to the transformation of silence into language and action. In her essay, Lorde writes, “. . . [a]nd where the words of women are crying to be heard, we must each of us recognize our responsibility to seek those words out, to read them and share them and examine them in their pertinence to our lives” (43). Discussion in the aftermath of the Isla Vista shootings focused on how the misogynist views of the shooter, as well as the views expressed in the anti-feminist men’s rights online

FEMINIST PRAXIS 203

forums he frequented, are a part of the fabric of our culture. In addition, the #yesallwomen hashtag references and is intended as a retort to a sentiment expressed by those attempting to derail or dismiss feminist critiques of sexism, #notallmen.

Popular hashtags in recent years include Janet Mock’s #girlslikeus (focused on trans women); the African American Policy Forum’s #say- hername (created to raise awareness of police brutality against African American women and girls); #whyistayed and #whyileft, which inspired speak-outs about the misconceptions surrounding intimate partner vio- lence; Laura Bates’s #everydaysexism, which is connected to the Everyday Sexism project (everydaysexism.com); and #e" yourbeautystandards, cre- ated by plus-sized model Tess Holliday, and #metoo, which exploded in late 2017 around issues of sexual harassment and assault.

Everyday activism : while the quote from Megan Seely at the beginning of this section suggests that feminist praxis is by de! nition undertaken by and with a group, this is not necessarily the case. $ ere is increas- ing recognition that another component of feminist praxis is individual, everyday actions that reject or challenge oppressive practices. Jessica Valenti’s Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters dedicates a chapter to identifying “acts of everyday feminism,” ways that individual life choices can challenge oppressive practices. Regarding sex, Valenti argues that women should educate themselves, refuse to participate in “slut-bashing,” take control of their sexuality, and think critically about exhibitionist behaviors. She encourages young women to critically scrutinize popular culture and mass media, and to reject misogynist male-targeted publications like Maxim and Playboy . Regarding dating and marriage, Valenti advocates that (heterosexual) women pay their own way rather than expecting men to do so, and also strongly advocates that women not take their husband’s name when they get married. Valenti also identi! es reproductive rights as an area for everyday activism , exhorting women to take birth control, volunteer at a local clinic, ! nd out local pharmacies’ policies on providing women with birth control and emergency contraception, and call out public attitudes that are anti-choice. She also encourages women to talk to the men in their lives about feminism, and to reject dieting and beauty standards. In her book A Little F’d Up: Why Feminism Is Not a Dirty Word, Julie Zeil- inger argues that the individualization of feminism is a hallmark of the

204 FEMINIST PRAXIS

third wave, and points to an emphasis on the rejection of sexist social norms and self-acceptance in the face of societal pressure to conform to those norms, as in the body positivity movement.

Everyday feminist acts can also be undertaken by men, as the XO Jane article “35 Practical Steps Men Can Take To Support Feminism” makes clear. $ e post identi! es and explicates speci! c everyday actions that cisgender and straight men can take to support feminist movement, including admonitions to do

50% (or more) of emotional support work in your intimate rela- tionships and friendships, consume cultural products produced by women, and educate yourself about sexual consent and make sure there is clear, unambiguous communication of consent in all your sexual relationships.

(Clark)

But in addition to living one’s politics through individual choices in your personal life about what to do and wear (or not), what to buy (or not), and who to date and/or be intimate with (or not), everyday activ- ism can extend into other places and roles, including the workplace. A growing body of research, for example, has focused on document- ing the existence and negative e" ects of implicit or unconscious bias in many arenas. Implicit biases are biases that we have that are below the conscious level, and are based on internalized stereotypes about margin- alized groups that help reinforce and perpetuate systems of oppression. An important kind of individual, everyday activism that everyone can engage in is to bring those implicit biases to a conscious level and work against them. Given the large body of research that backs up the exis- tence and negative e" ects of implicit bias, this is a powerful example of feminist praxis.

One way to become aware of implicit biases is by taking the Implicit Association Test. Jessica Bennett, author of Feminist Fight Club: An O" ce Survival Manual (For a Sexist Workplace) , o" ers concrete strategies (aimed at both women and men) for working against implicit gender bias in the workplace; one tip has to do with instituting a “no inter- ruption” rule to help ensure that women’s voices are heard in meetings.

FEMINIST PRAXIS 205

Implicit racial bias in the workplace (most notably, in the criminal justice system) has also been amply documented, and can be worked against; in her article, “Implicit Bias Means We’re All Probably at Least a Little Bit Racist,” Jenee Desmond-Harris lists six approaches to combating implicit bias: counter-stereotypic training; exposure to individuals who defy stereotypes; intergroup contact; education e" orts aimed at rais- ing awareness of implicit bias; taking the perspective of others; and mindfulness-meditation techniques. Tackling our own implicit biases is a micro-level activist strategy, but it can have lasting, wide-reaching e" ects as we consider how countering those biases will impact how we act and how we treat members of marginalized groups in our friend circles, in encounters with strangers in public, and in our roles as work- ers and parents.

Bystander intervention : another related type of everyday activism is bystander intervention . Bystander intervention is a technique for preventing rape and sexual assault by teaching people (bystanders) to intervene when they spot a situation (on the street, at a party, in their residence hall, etc.) that seems headed in that direction. According to E. J. Gra" , bystander intervention programs teach “young men and women that they can look out for others in trou- ble, and show them how to intervene without confrontation or danger.” $ ese programs are o" ered by organized activist organi- zations such as Green Dot, Men Can Stop Rape, Coaching Boys into Men, and Mentors in Violence Prevention, but the technique itself, once taught, can be modeled and practiced by individu- als as they go about their everyday lives. Bystander intervention programs are a good example of praxis; social science researchers have begun to study whether they are e" ective, as measured by, for example, a drop in reported cases of sexual assault and rape on a campus that has instituted a program. As the results of these studies emerge, they will be used to modify existing bystander intervention programs.

206 FEMINIST PRAXIS

Misconception Alert “ I’m not a member of group x, so I can ’ t be a part of their movement. ” Some people mistakenly think that they have to be a member of a marginal- ized group in order to be an advocate or activist for that cause. By this mistaken logic, men can’t be feminists, and straight people can’t be a part of the LGBTQ movement. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. $ e operative term here is “ally,” which Andrea Ayvazian de! nes as “a member of a dominant group in our society who works to dismantle any form of oppression from which she or he receives the ben- e! t” (724). Allies have many important roles to play in creating social change, but one of the most important, perhaps, is their role in work- ing with other members of their dominant group. PFLAG’s “Guide to Being a Straight Ally,” for example, invites straight allies to “[b]e part of the solution even if you’re not part of the GLBT community” by chal- lenging heterosexist and homophobic comments, jokes, and stereotypes:

[w]hether it is around the water cooler, at a restaurant, or with your kids on the way to soccer practice, speaking up changes minds. And the more you do it, you’ll ! nd that the less your help is actu- ally needed as people on the whole begin to change.

Resistance to Feminist Praxis It is important to remember that feminist praxis, and Women’s and Gen- der Studies education, are not embraced by all. As discussed in Chapter 1, there are those who believe that the aims of feminist movement have been achieved over the course of the last 150 years, and therefore that there is no longer a need for further feminist activism. $ e perpetuation of this idea that feminism is no longer needed is a form of resistance to challenging sexism and is one aspect of a phenomenon known as back- lash . In the context of feminism, the term was popularized by journalist Susan Faludi’s book of the same name, Backlash: ! e Undeclared War against American Women. Published in 1991, Faludi’s book documented media and public discourse that she identi! ed as a form of cultural backlash against the advances of the second wave of the women’s move- ment in the 1960s and 1970s, which had been a tidal wave of social

FEMINIST PRAXIS 207

and cultural change in key areas such as workplace equality and pay equity, reproductive rights, and changing social norms around gender expectations for women. Calling into question the conclusions of media pundits and writers who claimed that feminism was to blame for wom- en’s purported ennui and dissatisfaction with their “liberation,” Faludi indicts such claims as part of a larger cultural resistance to true libera- tion and equality for women.

Backlash against feminism and other progressive social movements continues in the 21st century, but its forms have shifted over time. In addition to overt rejection and demonization of feminism, we are now seeing what Susan J. Douglas terms “enlightened sexism,” which she describes as “more nuanced and much more insidious” (11). Enlight- ened sexism

takes the gains of the women’s movement as a given, and then uses them as permission to resurrect retrograde images of girls and women as sex objects, bimbos, and hootchie mamas still de! ned by their appearance and their biological destiny.

(10)

$ e nuance or subtlety that Douglas refers to comes from the fact that these retrograde images are often presented ironically, with a level of self-awareness that they’re sexist, which positions the viewer or con- sumer of the images as in on the joke. In a post on her blog, Feminist Frequency, entitled “Retro Sexism and Uber Ironic Advertising,” Anita Sarkeesian uses the term “retro sexism” to analyze advertisements that use this type of irony, and she argues that advertisers do this in order to simultaneously present sexist images while distancing themselves from them.

According to Douglas, media stories about women opting out of the workforce are another aspect of enlightened sexism. A 2003 New York Times story, the “Opt-Out Revolution,” suggested that feminism had failed in its aims to liberate women through access to education and economic self-su# ciency and that, instead, professional and educated women were returning in droves to the home, “opting out” of the hectic demands of the workplace for the halcyon sanctuary of domesticity.

208 FEMINIST PRAXIS

A range of cultural and media responses have questioned these assumptions from multiple angles. For example, an August 2013 New York Times story claimed “$ e Opt-Out Generation Wants Back In,” asserting that those women who had “opted” for domestic responsi- bilities over paid labor were realizing that “opting out” of careers and opting in to unpaid work subsidized by a working partner’s labor was unsustainable. Article author Judith Warner uses the case study of Sheila O’Donnel to illustrate the consequences of “opting out”:

[e]ven with the reduced schedule, the stresses of life in a two- career household put an overwhelming strain on her marriage. $ ere were ugly ! ghts with her husband about laundry and over who would step in when the nanny was out sick. “All this would be easier if you didn’t work,” O’Donnel recalled her husband say- ing. “I was so stressed,” she told me. “I said, $ is is ridiculous. We’d made plenty of money. We’d saved plenty of money.”

Subsequently, in describing the case of O’Donnel, as well as the seis- mic economic changes since the initial “opt-out” story was published in 2003, Warner claims that individual women have reconsidered their decisions in light of the personal sacri! ces and uncertainty and depen- dence that such a “choice” engenders.

A number of feminist theorists and critics have argued that the cur- rent cultural obsession with girls’ and women’s physical appearance in terms of the shape, size, and sexiness of their bodies is a form of backlash against feminism. Gender norms for girls and women have inarguably changed in signi! cant ways over the past 50 years as a result of feminism, but even as women have greater freedoms in many areas of life, there is a corresponding greater scrutiny of their bodies. Sandra Bartky, for example, points out that “[w]omen are no longer required to be chaste or modest, to restrict their sphere of activity to the home, or even to realize their properly feminine destiny in maternity.” Instead, she argues, “normative femininity is coming more and more to be centered on woman’s body—not its duties and obligations or even its capacity to bear children, but its sexuality, more precisely, its presumed heterosexuality and its appearance” (41–42). Further, Bartky argues that

FEMINIST PRAXIS 209

the latter type of control only started to assume greater importance as the former waned as a result of feminist struggles to rede! ne women’s roles. Jessica Valenti calls it a distraction: “[t]he more we’re worked up about how fat we are or how hot we want to be, the less we’re wor- ried about the things that really matter, the things that will a" ect our lives” (199–200). In other words, reorienting women’s attention to their physical appearances is as much about directing women’s behavior and time as it is surveilling their appearances and conformity to a narrowly de! ned ideal of feminine beauty.

A related term is postfeminism , which rests on the premise that the aims of feminist movement(s) have been achieved and that we live in a society where women experience a full range of choices equal to those of men, or as Angela McRobbie explains, “post-feminism positively draws on and invokes feminism as that which can be taken into account, to suggest that equality is achieved, in order to install a whole repertoire of new meanings which emphasise that it is no longer needed” (255). Another de! nition uses postfeminism interchangeably or as an alter- nate to the term “backlash.”

A di" erent but related form of backlash can be seen in recent trans- phobic e" orts to force transgender people to use public restrooms that correspond with the sex assigned on their birth certi! cate, as opposed to using the bathroom that corresponds with their gender identity. $ ese anti-trans policies, bills, and referenda can be seen as a reaction- ary response to the growing visibility of trans people in our society, and the recent legal and political gains made by and for them. An especially insidious aspect of some of these anti-trans e" orts is that they have attempted to garner support by claiming that they are championing (cis- gender) girls’ and women’s safety. $ ese appeals claim that allowing trans women to use women’s restrooms will lead to violence against women and girls in those spaces, as trans women are, in this transphobic view, really men who dress in women’s clothing in order to prey on women and girls. But as Alex Berg succinctly articulated in a recent article,

invoking women’s safety while ignoring real violence faced by women and girls on college campuses, on the street and in their own homes is nothing more than a veil for hate. $ is so-called

210 FEMINIST PRAXIS

protection is a justi! cation for transphobia—and as cisgender women, we’re done being your excuse.

Another form of backlash can occur at the micro level, and takes the form of potential negative personal consequences to individuals in the workplace who engage in what one research study refers to as “diversity- valuing behaviors.” $ e study, reported in the Harvard Business Review , demonstrated that employees who engaged in these behaviors, “whether they respected cultural, religious, gender, and racial di" erences, valued working with a diverse group of people, and felt comfortable managing people from di" erent racial or cultural backgrounds” did not bene! t from them in terms of how their bosses rated their competence or per- formance and in fact,

women and nonwhite executives who were reported as frequently engaging in these behaviors were rated much worse by their bosses, in terms of competence and performance ratings, than their female and nonwhite counterparts who did not actively promote balance. For all the talk about how important diversity is within organiza- tions, white and male executives aren’t rewarded, career-wise, for engaging in diversity-valuing behavior, and nonwhite and female executives actually get punished for it.

What we want to highlight here is that actively valuing diversity within a range of environments has di" erential consequences, and these should be recognized; it also showcases the importance of the roles of allies from a range of demographic sectors toward achieving diversity goals. Johnson and Hekman’s research suggests that those within the mythical norm may not be rewarded for the work, but if they engage in it they are not punished, and their actions have the long-term potential to shift the workplace culture so that members of marginalized groups can engage in diversity-valuing behavior without fear of repercussion.

Finally, backlash includes cultural, media, and interpersonal reactions to movements like Black Lives Matter, which was discussed in Chapter 3. Black Lives Matter began as a reaction against “extrajudicial killings of Black people by police and vigilantes” and has extended into a larger

FEMINIST PRAXIS 211

movement for racial justice. Reactionary hashtags and products like “All Lives Matter” and “Blue Lives Matter” bumper stickers and posters aim to shift the public narrative about and undercut the attention to the very real risks and e" ects faced by people of color when interacting with institutions broadly and law enforcement speci! cally; reframing the narrative is an example of how social movements are not necessarily lockstep narratives of progress.

Understanding the causes and manifestations of backlash is a neces- sary skill for those engaged in feminist praxis.

Misconception Alert White men are frequently victims of “reverse discrimination.” One miscon- ception about feminism and feminist movement is that not only have the goals of feminist movement been achieved, but that in fact women (or other groups such as men of color) have distinct advantages over men, or that men are signi! cantly disadvantaged by women’s achieve- ments or by a# rmative action and equity e" orts. As a brief review of key issues shows, in fact reverse discrimination is uncommon, partly because, by using a macro lens as outlined in Chapter 3, we can see how systems of privilege and oppression interact to grant some groups privileges and withhold them from others. In this system, white men are usually an advantaged group. In this sense, feminism in the popular imagination is at odds on some key issues with the demographic and statistical realities of women’s lives in the United States and globally.

Although there have been important achievements in improving the quality of life for many women in the United States and internationally, demographic and statistical realities reveal that, in fact, there is a good deal of work to be done to bring about gender equity, particularly because such claims about feminism having reached its goals typically operate under the assumption that the goals of middle-class, white women are the goals of feminist movement. However, feminist movement takes many forms and serves a broad spectrum of women’s needs. For example:

• Women and girls globally experience high rates of violence and cul- tural sexism ranging from son preference to dowry deaths to sex- selective abortion.

212 FEMINIST PRAXIS

• Female circumcision, the nonmedical removal of all or part of a women’s genitalia, persists across many parts of Africa, Asia, North America, and Europe.

• Males outnumber females three to one in family films. In con- trast, females make up just over 50 percent of the population in the United States. Even more staggering is the fact that this ratio, as seen in family films, is the same as it was in 1946 (Geena Davis Institute on Gender in the Media).

• As UNICEF reports, women are dramatically underrepresented in national representative and legislative bodies, making up just 17 percent of elected representatives, and 6 percent of heads of state (UNICEF).

• Although women have made substantial gains in efforts for eco- nomic justice, wage inequalities continue to persist. According to 9to5.org, an advocacy organization for women workers,

a signi! cant pay gap exists for women and people of color. Women earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2011 annual earnings. For women of color the gap is even wider— African-American women earn only 69 cents and Latinas just 60 cents for every dollar earned by males, the highest earners.

(9to5) • Legislative efforts such as the Paycheck Fairness Act aim to reduce

this gap, but women still make less than their male coworkers. • As the National Center for Education Statistics explains, “Title IX

of the Education Amendments of 1972 protects people from dis- crimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance.” As a result of this legislative act, there is some cultural perception that equity for women in athletics has led to inequities or disadvantages for men. However, the Wom- en’s Sports Foundation explains that, in fact, men’s participation in athletics is increasing; they observe:

[t]his misinformation campaign takes the focus away from the facts that (1) women continue to be signi! cantly underrep- resented among high school and college athletes, (2) the gap between men’s and women’s sports participation and support

FEMINIST PRAXIS 213

is not closing and (3) it is the wealthiest athletic programs in NCAA Division I-A that are dropping men’s minor sports, typi- cally because they are shifting these monies to compete in the football and men’s basketball arms race.

(Women’s Sports Foundation) On the whole, female athletes receive fewer scholarship dollars

($965 million female vs. $1.15 billion male) and fewer athletic par- ticipation opportunities (3.2 million female vs. 4.5 million male) than male athletes. A news story in the Christian Science Monitor reveals the more common explanation for the elimination of men’s sports:

[t]he NCAA also points out that non-revenue men’s sports are often cut to provide more funds for the two big revenue sports, football and basketball. In 2006, for instance, Rutgers University dropped men’s tennis, a team with a budget of approximately $175,000. $ e National Women’s Law Center points out that Rutgers spent about $175,000 in the same year on hotel rooms for the football team—for home games.

(Goodale)

Anchoring Topics through the Lens of Feminist Praxis Work and Family $ ere is a wide range of feminist praxis that focuses on issues related to work and family. Some takes the form of formal organizations focused on achieving economic justice for women as workers and mothers. Other examples include programs focused on addressing racial dispari- ties in breastfeeding rates, as well as the high-pro! le initiative to bail mothers out of jail for Mother’s Day, thereby raising awareness in the general public about the bail system in the U.S. and the impact of mass incarceration on women.

MomsRising: serves as a kind of clearinghouse that takes multiple approaches to activism on behalf of women. $ ey are focused on a range of issues including maternity and paternity leave, % exible work options, health care access, early childhood education, and paid sick leave. Since 2006, the group has been engaged in organizing grassroots activists, for

214 FEMINIST PRAXIS

example, providing online resources for lobbying legislators to support fair wages or family leave. MomsRising also hosts a blog where women can share their stories on the topics supported by the organization; it also aims to “amplify women’s voices and issues in the national dialogue and in the media” in order to advocate for positive social and legislative change that will support work–life balance.

Pride at Work: Pride at Work is a nonpro! t organization that focuses on identifying issues of mutual importance to the labor movement and the LGBTQ community. According to their website, they focus both on improving the climate for LGBTQ people in labor unions and on forging connections between the labor movement and LGBTQ com- munities. Members of the organization recognize that labor unions can be an important source of protection from discrimination in the workplace for LGBTQ people; for example, they point out that in 33 states, union contracts are the “only legal form of protection against employment discrimination for transgender working people.” $ ey also note that OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) o" ers guidelines for restroom access for transgender employees, noting that access to a restroom is a workplace safety and health issue for all employees, and uniquely so for transgender employees. Among other things, Pride at Work o" ers support and trainings to labor unions seek- ing to be more inclusive of their membership.

Mother Nurture: the Opening Illustration in Chapter 4 focused on intersectional approaches to breastfeeding. In Detroit, MI, a pro- gram called Mother Nurture has been created, building on the work of a diverse group of health activists and health care professionals. $ e program focuses on addressing the racial disparities in breastfeeding rates and has done so by drawing on the wealth of research ! ndings that have documented the disparities, pinpointed their sources, and studied the most e" ective means of shrinking them, making the pro- gram an excellent example of feminist praxis. For example, according to Molly Ginty, studies have shown that “people of di" erent ethnici- ties were signi! cantly more receptive to receiving health information when it was delivered by someone with whom they identi! ed— someone who looked like them, talked like them, and was in their same peer group.” As a result, Mother Nurture has focused on providing

FEMINIST PRAXIS 215

training to African American women to become breastfeeding peer counselors and lactation consultants.

Mama’s Bail Out Day: in the lead up to Mother’s Day in 2017, a coali- tion of more than 20 organizations across the United States worked together to provide bail money for over 100 women. Actions like this are a part of the larger Movement for Black Lives, the platform for which lays out the case for abolishing money bail because the bail sys- tem is racially discriminatory and disproportionately negatively impacts low-income people. As noted on the National Bail Out website,

[p]re-trial incarceration has catastrophic e" ects on our communi- ties in particular. Black people are over two times more likely to be arrested and once arrested are twice as likely to be caged before trial. Our LGBTQ and gender nonconforming family are targeted and caged at even more alarming rates, and once in jail are signi! - cantly more likely to be sexually and physically abused.

People who cannot a" ord to post bail, even in amounts of only a few hundred dollars, are consigned to sit in jail while awaiting trial, perhaps losing their jobs, their housing, and sometimes even losing custody of their children. Many plead guilty to charges against them, even if they are innocent, in an e" ort to be released from jail more quickly. Actions like Mama’s Bail Out Day serve dual purposes; a small percentage of incarcerated people are literally freed through community bail funds, and the publicity surrounding the action raises the level of awareness in the broader community about this aspect of inequality in the crimi- nal justice system. Allies can also donate money to one of the many community bail funds. As law professor Jocelyn Simonson puts it, “this unprecedented coordination of e" orts to bail out poor people of color exempli! es the kind of mass acts of resistance that can disrupt the status quo in the criminal-justice system.”

Language, Images, and Symbols Although critical to the development of social norms and assump- tions around gender, language, images, and symbols can be particularly

216 FEMINIST PRAXIS

challenging to reshape. Unlike work and family or reproductive rights— which are often subject at least in part to public policy (whether laws, regulations, funding priorities, initiatives, etc.), symbolic representa- tions of gender in the form of art, music, popular culture, literature, ! lm, are much less subject to such forms of social and political legislation, and so activism around language, images, and symbols takes di" erent approaches to critiquing, reframing, and in% uencing symbolic represen- tations of women, gender, and race.

One group, active since the 1980s, is the Guerrilla Girls. Following an exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art on “An International Survey of Painting and Sculpture,” protests about the white, male, Eurocentric, and U.S.-centric content of the “international survey” emerged. Femi- nists in the art world critiqued the exclusion of women and people of color from important temporary exhibits such as these, and that critique broadened out to include an analysis of whose work was included in museums’ permanent collections and exhibited in commercial galleries. $ ey created colorful, sarcastic, and humorous posters and posted them as a way to draw attention to the art world’s gender and racial disparity. As the group themselves explains, the Guerrilla Girls are

a bunch of anonymous females who take the names of dead women artists as pseudonyms and appear in public wearing gorilla masks. We have produced posters, stickers, books, printed projects, and actions that expose sexism and racism in politics, the art world, ! lm and the culture at large.

Highlighting the exclusion of women artists and artists of color from mainstream galleries, the loosely organized group engages in a range of activities from demonstrations to “% ash mob” type protests, to billboards and posters as well as authoring books and public letters.

A similar e" ort to reshape media representation of girls and women across many types of media is the Institute on Gender and Media, founded by actress Geena Davis in 2004. $ e institute takes a three- pronged approach to changing the “media landscape” around gender representations, including research, education, and advocacy. First, as the sponsor of research studies, the organization is able to support

FEMINIST PRAXIS 217

investigations into media representations, providing a sound and robust empirical foundation for its education and advocacy. For example, the institute has sponsored studies of industry leaders’ perceptions of gen- der in family ! lms, investigations into gender disparities both on-screen and behind the camera, and assessments of the portrayal of occupations in G-rated, family ! lms. Such research investigations have allowed the institute to draw important conclusions, for example, about the repre- sentation of women in particular ! elds, such as the ! nding that in one study, not a single female character was depicted in medical science, executive business, or politics (Smith 2). $ e institute uses this research in two equally important ways. First, the institute and its organizational partners seek to educate stakeholders and leaders about the impact of gender representations in media. In other words, the institute reaches out to the makers of media in an attempt to shape the content that they produce. $ ey also reach out to consumers of media; the institute o" ers an array of web-based resources including lessons and curricula that can be used by teachers in a variety of settings to teach critical thinking and media literacy skills to young people. Finally, the institute engages in advocacy by providing public presentations, consulting with professional and industry groups, using social media, and interfacing and partnering with other organizations such as UN Women and the Girl Scouts.

Feminist praxis can take other forms around symbolic representation— such as the #notbuyingit Twitter campaign initiated by Missrepresenta- tion.org , a nonpro! t social action campaign and media organization emerging from the documentary of the same name, written and directed by Jennifer Siebel Newsom. Miss Representation focused on making visible the underrepresentation and degrading representations of women in the media. $ e #notbuyingit campaign is one way that organizations can use social media to highlight, critique, and mobilize action about symbolic representation, in this case, products that o" er stereotyped, degrading, or harmful messages. For example, an August 2013 tweet highlighted an Etsy product, a glass with the message “You’ve Just Been Roo! ed” that reveals itself at the bottom after the drinker has ! nished the beverage. One of the goals of the campaign is to call attention to such products and hold manufacturers accountable

218 FEMINIST PRAXIS

for misogynist products as well as to discourage consumers from pur- chasing them.

Another powerful example of hashtag activism focused on represen- tations is #oscarssowhite, created by April Reign in 2015, which was brie% y mentioned in the Case Study at the end of Chapter 1. Reign coined the hashtag in response to the nomination list of the four categories for acting which included no people of color among its 20 nominees. In 2016, #oscarsstillsowhite emerged when a similar slate of white nominees was announced for the four categories in 2015 ! lms, even though two commercially and critically successful ! lms— Creed and Straight Outta Compton— featured performances by highly praised actors like Samuel Jackson, Will Smith, and Idris Elba. It’s hard to know the speci! c impact of Reign’s hashtag activism precisely on subsequent years, but the 2017 nomination list had a record number of African American nominees and saw the most black Academy Award winners in the history of the awards.

Bodies A key focus of feminist activism has been the idea that women have a right to control their own bodies. $ ere is a long history of feminist organizing around the issues of rape, sexual assault, and street harass- ment. In its earliest forms, this activism focused on marital violence and was sometimes linked to the temperance movement, as many saw alco- hol as the chief cause of men’s violence against their wives and children. It was not until the second wave of feminism, however, that the impact of feminist e" orts began to be felt. A brief discussion of this activism over the past 40 years reveals both continuity and change in terms of its targets, tone, tactics and strategies.

A well-established form of activism around violence against women is the international movement Take Back the Night. Starting in 1976 in Brussels, Belgium, this activist e" ort uses marches, protests, and dem- onstrations as well as candlelight vigils and accompanying speakers to call for the elimination of violence against women. Take Back the Night marches are a symbolic reclamation of public space after dark, which girls and women are taught to fear through the messages they receive

FEMINIST PRAXIS 219

about their responsibility in protecting themselves against attack. $ e Take Back the Night Foundation, established in 1999, describes its goals as follows: “[t]he Take Back $ e Night Foundation seeks to end sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual abuse and all other forms of sexual violence. We serve to create safe communities and respectful relationships through awareness events and initiatives” (“About”). Take Back the Night marches are especially prevalent on college campuses, where they continue to play a crucial role in raising young people’s awareness of these issues and also provide a powerful forum for survivors to speak and heal. Critiques of the movement have centered on the potential implication that “stranger rape” and nighttime attacks in the bushes are the primary form of sexual violence against women, when in fact a small minority of sexual assaults are committed by someone unknown to the victim.

Similar in its goals but di" erent in its tone and tactics is the Slut- Walk movement. SlutWalks began after a police o# cer at a safety forum at York University in January 2011 claimed that women “should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.” Outraged, a grassroots and social media campaign led by Heather Jarvis and Sonya Barnett emerged in major cities across the United States and Canada in which thousands took to the streets with chants and signs to protest the victim- blaming attitude re% ected in Constable Michael Sanguinetti’s comments. Even though the o# cer later apologized, his comments set o" hundreds of organized SlutWalks, starting with the April 3 march in Toronto. $ e foundation of SlutWalk is the rejection of the idea that women’s sexuality, sexual behavior, or sexual expression is the cause of sexual violence against women or of rape culture. Marchers come together in their rejection and condemnation of victim-blaming. SlutWalks proved to be controversial, even among feminists, however, in part because some feminists reject the idea that “slut” can be co-opted or repurposed because of its sexist and patriarchal origins. Rebecca Traister, for example, wrote that

[s]cantily clad marching seems weirdly blind to the race, class, and body-image issues that usually (rightly) obsess young femi- nists and seems inhospitable to scads of women who, for various reasons, might not feel it logical or comfortable to express their

220 FEMINIST PRAXIS

revulsion at victim-blaming by donning bustiers. So whereas the mission of SlutWalks is crucial, the package is confusing and leaves young feminists open to the very kinds of attacks they are battling.

Many women of color also pointed out that because of racialized stereo- types that construct them as hypersexualized, they have an even more ambivalent relationship to the term “slut.”

A controversial activist strategy related to combating rape and sexual assault is the practice of posting (physically and/or virtually) the names of alleged perpetrators. In the past, names might have been posted on a photocopied % yer and posted in women’s restrooms or in residence halls on campus, whereas now the names might circulate online. In spring of 2014 an unknown person or persons posted a list of four names under the heading “Rapists on Campus” around the campus of Columbia University. $ e act received national attention, in large part because Columbia was already in the news as a result of 23 students ! ling a federal complaint against the university alleging the mishandling of sexual assault cases. According to CNN, the complaint alleges “the Ivy League university discouraged students from reporting sexual assaults, allowed perpetrators to remain on campus, sanctioned inadequate dis- ciplinary actions for perpetrators and discriminated against students based on their sexual orientation” (Crook). Whereas some defended this approach as a way of empowering students to protect themselves when the university administration had failed to do so, others rightly pointed out this tactic’s potential for abuse.

Another way that feminist activism around violence has changed in the last 40 years is that it increasingly includes (and is sometimes led by) men. $ e White Ribbon Campaign, based in Canada, describes itself as the “world’s largest movement of men and boys working to end violence against women and girls, promote gender equity, healthy relationships and a new vision of masculinity.” Primarily educational in its focus, the White Ribbon Campaign o" ers workshops, conferences, and trainings. An organization whose focus is more parallel to Take Back the Night and SlutWalks is Walk a Mile in Her Shoes, which is an international men’s march that features men walking in high heels. While lauded for raising men’s awareness of gendered violence and facilitating their

FEMINIST PRAXIS 221

active involvement in the movement against it, this event has been criti- cized for not always being thoughtful about the way it is organized and advertised. More speci! cally, some local marches have played up the idea that men walking in “women’s” shoes is funny, thereby reinforcing rather than challenging traditional constructions of masculinity. One response to this is for march organizers to challenge attendees’ assump- tions by reminding them that not all women wear heels, and not all who wear heels are women. Another example is the activist group Men Can Stop Rape, a nonpro! t organization engaging in education programs, awareness building campaigns, and training projects with the goal of combating men’s violence against women. $ e organization “mobilizes men to use their strength for creating cultures free from violence, espe- cially men’s violence against women,” and operates from the assumption that men are “vital allies with the will and character to make healthy choices and foster safe, equitable relationships” (“What We Do”). $ eir 2014 “Take a Stand” campaign provides strategies for bystander intervention—ways men (and women) can support women who are in uncomfortable or dangerous situations (see Figure 5.2 for an example of a public awareness campaign of this nature).

Activism around street harassment has further gained new visibility in recent years as a result of the creation of Hollaback . Hollaback, which is described as a “non-pro! t and movement to end street harassment,” is a good example of activism that has been enhanced by technologi- cal innovation. According to the website, “[a]t Hollaback!, we leverage technology to bring voice to an issue that historically has been silenced, and to build leadership within this movement to break the silence.” It was inspired by one woman who was so fed up by her experience of street harassment that she decided to take out her phone and snap a pic- ture of the man who was masturbating on the subway while staring at her. She initially took her complaint to the police, but they did nothing, so she posted the photo online, and the story eventually got consider- able media attention. In response, a group of young people decided to start a blog where people could share their experiences of street harass- ment. From there, the project has grown to include the creation and dissemination of a mobile app that people can use to document the nature and location of street harassment. On an individual level, it can

Figure 5.2 Bystander Intervention Source: Men Can Stop Rape (www.mencanstoprape.org)

FEMINIST PRAXIS 223

be empowering for someone who has experienced harassment to ! ght back by documenting their experience and connecting with others who have had similar experiences. On a broader level, to do so also con- tributes to the collection of data that can be used when approaching police and policy makers about addressing the issue. Importantly, Hol- laback employs an intersectional approach to street harassment, rightly pointing out that street harassment can be “sexist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, sizeist and/or classist. It is an expression of the interlocking and overlapping oppressions we face and it functions as a means to silence our voices and ‘keep us in our place.’”

Case Study: ! e Spark Movement In 2010, the American Psychological Association published the “Report of the APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Young Girls,” the results of work conducted by a subcommittee of the national organization of the ! eld of psychology. $ e group was charged to

examine and summarize the best psychological theory, research, and clinical experience addressing the sexualization of girls via media and other cultural messages, including the prevalence of these messages and their impact on girls, and include attention to the role and impact of race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.

De! ning early sexualization as the objecti! cation of girls and women, exclusive value attached to the sexual attributes of individuals, and inappropriate imposition of sexuality on a person, the group’s report documented the ample evidence of sexualization of young girls, as well as the cognitive, emotional, psychological, and physical harms caused by early sexualization. $ e group made recommendations for future direc- tions for research, public policy, practice, education, and training, and as a result of that report, the Spark Movement emerged.

$ e Spark Movement describes itself as “a girl-fueled, intergenera- tional activist organization working to ignite and foster an antiracist gender justice movement to end violence against women and girls and promote girls’ healthy sexuality, self-empowerment and well-being.” $ ey

224 FEMINIST PRAXIS

do so “by providing feminist, girl-focused training, consulting services, curricula and resources.” $ eir website has pages that are addressed to and for girls, while other pages are for adult educators and activists who work with girls. $ e movement illustrates feminist praxis because of its blending of research, education, training, and “everyday activism,” such as publicly critiquing those products that objectify, stereotype, and demean girls and women through protest, social media, or other methods. Some of the organization’s victories include launching a Change.org petition asking Seventeen Magazine to include at least one photo spread each issue that included “unaltered images” (Bluhm). Other recent e" orts include providing resources for tagging gender stereotyped toys in store aisles with the note “You’ve Been Sparked” to invite shoppers to recognize such stereotypes or sexualized products, and Spark Activist $ eater, with online toolkits available to launch activist performances within one’s com- munity. Another ongoing project involves a collaboration with Google’s Field Trip app called “Women on the Map.” $ ose involved in the project identi! ed and wrote pro! les of over 100 women around the world who have made history, and then linked them to particular geographical spots. According to the Spark Movement website, “[w]hen you download Field Trip and turn on Spark’s Women on the Map, your phone will buzz when you approach a place where a woman made history.”

$ e Spark Movement directs activist e" orts through its blog (which features posts by both girls and adults), recommendations for taking action (such as a recent fundraising campaigns directed at supporting girl activists), and documenting e" orts to intervene in harmful practices or correcting gaps in education and training (such as a national e" ort to educate athletic coaches about sexual assault prevention). $ e work of the Spark Movement illustrates how activism can emerge from research and inform policy and practice. It also shows that awareness of injustice and the agency to address injustice is not the sole province of adults.

Misconception Alert I’m only one person and can’t make a di# erence, being an activist is a full-time job, activism is all about marching in the streets . When taking a Women’s and Gender Studies course, students sometimes feel overwhelmed and

FEMINIST PRAXIS 225

unsure how to take action. As this chapter demonstrates, however, there are large- and small-scale activist e" orts that any one individual can take—and that allies are critical to the achievement of social justice.

End of Chapter Elements Evaluating Prior Knowledge 1. Think about past educational experiences you’ve had in school. To

what degree have you seen intersections between your classroom learning, or academic knowledge, and your lived experience? Which classes most commonly “translated” into your non-school life? Which seemed disconnected?

2. Think about the key terms presented in this chapter, including femi- nist praxis, ally, backlash, rape culture, postfeminism, and activism. Which of these have you used previously in your everyday vocabulary? Which take on new meanings in the context of this chapter material?

Application Exercises 1. Spend a day paying careful attention to gender dynamics in your

own life—to interactions with friends, family, and coworkers; to your workplace culture, practices, or discourse; to your own use of language and ways of communicating. Framing your discussion in terms of feminist praxis, reflect on how you see threshold concepts from the texts manifested in your everyday experiences and how you might engage in “everyday activism.”

2. What are the activist organizations on your campus and in your community? What issues are these organizations working on, and how? Do you know anyone who is connected to one or more of them? What opportunities do they provide for getting involved? In your opinion, are there pressing issues on your campus and/or in your community that are not currently being addressed by an activist organization? If so, what are they?

3. Visit the website of one of the following organizations. In what ways do you see the organization engaged in feminist praxis? a. http://9to5.org/ b. www.incite-national.org/home

226 FEMINIST PRAXIS

c. www.feministfrequency.com/ d. www.transequality.org/ e. www.ihollaback.org/ f. http://upsettingrapeculture.com/ g. www.womensmediacenter.com h. www.onebillionrising.org/ I. www.knowyourix.org/

Skills Assessments 1. Read Abigail Jones’ article, “The Fight to End Period Shaming

Is Going Mainstream,” published in Newsweek in April of 2016, and write an analytical response that uses concepts and framework from Chapter 5 as a lens. What forms is menstrual activism taking, and in what institutions, both in the U.S. and in other parts of the world? How, where, and why is backlash experienced by menstrual activists? In what ways is menstrual activism informed by research and data?

2. Select an anti-feminist or pro-feminist website and thoroughly explore the site, paying attention to both the content of the site and how the site functions. Answer the following short-answer prompts with sev- eral paragraphs each, drawing on specific examples from the website. a. Summarize the overall point of view of the website. b. How does the website connect to a broader feminist movement? c. What opportunities for activism/action beyond reading does

the website o" er? d. How does the website situate feminism within a broader frame-

work of interlocking oppressions/intersectionality? e. Describe how the website acknowledges the social construc-

tion of gender, privilege, and oppression (or resists such a construction).

f. Describe the role that community and/or collaboration plays in the website. Is it supported or acknowledged? Is it suggested as a value?

g. Analyze the persona of the website—that is, analyze the tone, mood, and “personality” of the website. Here, you should draw

FEMINIST PRAXIS 227

from both visual and textual cues that contribute to the overall persona of the website.

h. Finally, drawing on your previous answers, evaluate the web- site’s e" ectiveness as an anti-feminist or pro-feminist site. $ is answer should be longer than your previous answers, and should synthesize the elements from questions a through g.

Discussion Questions 1. Think about some of the recommendations made throughout this

chapter for small- and large-scale activism. Are there ways that you have engaged in activism? Describe your previous experiences.

2. What are the major barriers or challenges to social change? What are the major barriers or challenges to your personal involvement in activism for social justice?

3. One of the goals of a feminist perspective is “the importance of locating oneself within structures of privilege and oppression” and to “analyze” how systems of privilege and oppression operate in a num- ber of contexts (for example, in one’s personal life and relationships, in experiences of one’s body, in societal institutions, etc.). How does your personal social location connect to a larger social structure? What forms of feminist praxis would be most appropriate and com- fortable for you to engage in, based on that location? Which would be uncomfortable and why?

Writing Prompts 1. Feminist praxis is the ability to apply and/or enact feminist the-

oretical principles to your own life and experience. Create a self- reflection or narrative that demonstrates your participation in and analysis of a feminist event or act of social change of which you were a part. This will include supporting documentation (e.g., pho- tos, documents, Internet coverage) of the event/action. Write a personal narrative reflection describing and analyzing a particular experience/event/action in which you have participated that meets the criteria of feminism action offered in this chapter. Collect and

228 FEMINIST PRAXIS

assemble a series of artifacts that document your participation in this event. Write an essay in which you: a. Explain the event b. Explain/describe your documentation and how they represent

the event c. Describe your role in the event d. Address your perception of the outcome of the event e. Connect your experience in this event to the de! nition of femi-

nist action 2. Building on Megan Seely’s “action plan” in Fight Like a Girl , review

the first three of her twelve-step approach to engaging in feminist praxis.

1) Define the issue that you want to raise awareness on; 2) Work with other activists, and dialogue the issue to clarify

the feminist analysis of the problem and the solution; and 3) Decide what action to take.

(20) Write an essay in which you get started on a praxis plan that uses

these first three steps, documenting your interest in the issue (and demonstrating familiarity with research and evidence on that issue); researching the current work (and organizations or groups involved in it) on the topic; and laying out action steps you could take to effect change.

Notes 1 www.change.org/petitions/sprint-improve-policies-to-keep-domestic-violence

victims-safe 2 www.change.org/petitions/south-africa-take-action-to-stop-corrective-rape

Works Cited 9to5.org. “We Need the Paycheck Fairness Act .” 9to5.org. http://9to5.org/we-need-

the-paycheck-fairness-act/. Accessed 7 July 2017. “About Take Back the Night.” Take Back the Night.org . 2013. https://takebackthenight.

org/. Accessed 7 July 2017. “About: What Is Hollaback?” Hollaback! You Have the Power to End Street Harassment .

2014. www.ihollaback.org/about/. Accessed 7 July 2017.

FEMINIST PRAXIS 229

APA Task Force on the Sexualization of Young Girls. “Report of the Task Force on the Sexualization of Young Girls.” American Psychological Association . 2010. www.apa. org/pi/women/programs/girls/report.aspx. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Arter, Neesha. “Navigating the Broken System Was Worse than the Rape Itself.” New York Times: Women in the World . 4 February 2016. http://nytlive.nytimes.com/ womenintheworld/2016/02/04/amanda-nguyen-is-taking-the-! ght-for-sexual- violence-survivors-civil-rights-all-the-way-to-the-white-house/. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Ayvazian, Andrea. “Interrupting the Cycle of Oppression: $ e Role of Allies as Agents of Change.” Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study . Ed. Paula Rothenberg. 7th edition. Worth, 2007, pp. 724–730.

Bartky, Sandra. “Foucault, Feminism, and the Modernization of Patriarchal Power.” ! e Politics of Women’s Bodies . Ed. Rose Weitz. Oxford University Press, 1998, pp. 25–45.

Belkin, Lisa. “$ e Opt-Out Revolution,” New York Times, 26 October 2003, www. nytimes.com/2003/10/26/magazine/the-opt-out-revolution.html. Accessed 19 Dec- ember 2017.

Bennett, Jessica. “How Not to Be Manterrupted in Meetings.” Time . 20 January 2015. Berg, Alex. “Stop Using Women and Girls to Justify Transphobia.” Hu" ngton Post .

23 February 2017. www.hu# ngtonpost.com/entry/stop-using-women-and-girls- to-justify-transphobia_us_58ae0c33e4b01406012f7e80. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Berger, Michele, and Cheryl Radelo" . Transforming Scholarship: Why Women’s and Gen- der Studies Students Are Changing ! emselves and the World . Routledge, 2011.

Bess, Gabby. “$ e Sexual Assault Survivor Saving Untested Rape Kits from the Trash.” Broadly . 2 February 2016. https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/4xkzwj/the-sexual- assault-survivor-saving-untested-rape-kits-from-the-trash. Accessed July 7 2017.

Bluhm, Julia. “ Seventeen Magazine: Give Girls Images of Real Girls!” Change.org . July 2012. www.change.org/p/seventeen-magazine-give-girls-images-of-real-girls. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Bunch, Charlotte. “Not by Degrees: Feminist $ eory and Education.” Feminist ! eory: A Reader . Eds. Wendy Kolmar and Frances Bartkowski. 4th edition. McGraw Hill, 2013, pp. 12–15.

Cauterucci, Christina. “$ e U.S. Is One Step Closer to a Federal Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights.” Slate . 7 September 2016. www.slate.com/blogs/xx_ factor/2016/09/07/congress_unanimously_passes_a_sexual_assault_survivors_ bill_of_rights.html. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Clark, Pamela. “35 Practical Steps Men Can Take to Support Feminism.” XO Jane . 13 June 2014, www.xojane.com/issues/feminism-men-practical-steps. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Cobble, Dorothy Sue, Linda Gordon, and Astrid Henry. Feminism Un$ nished . W.W. Norton, 2014.

Crook, Lawrence. “Alleged ‘Rapist List’ Appears around Columbia University.” CNN. com. 15 May 2014. www.cnn.com/2014/05/14/us/columbia-university-% ier- rapes/index.html. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Desmond-Harris, Jenee. “Implicit Bias Means We’re All Probably at Least a Little Bit Racist.” Vox . 15 August 2016. www.vox.com/2014/12/26/7443979/racism- implicit-racial-bias. Accessed 7 July 2017.

230 FEMINIST PRAXIS

Douglas, Susan J. Enlightened Sexism: ! e Seductive Message that Feminism’s Work Is Done . Henry Holt, 2010.

! e Education of Shelby Knox . Directed by Marion Lipschitz and Rose Rosenblatt, Women Make Movies, 2005.

Faludi, Susan. Backlash: ! e Undeclared War against American Women . Crown, 1991. Geena Davis Institute on Gender in the Media. “Research Informs and Empow-

ers.” SeeJane.org . 27 May 2014. https://seejane.org/research-informs-empowers/. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Ginty, Molly. “Detroit Team Shrinks Breastfeeding Disparities.” Women’s eNews . 22 June 2015. http://womensenews.org/2015/06/detroit-team-shrinks-breastfeeding-dis parities/. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Goodale, Gloria. “40 Years Later, Title IX Is Still Fighting Perception It Hurts Men’s Sports.” Christian Science Monitor . 23 June 2012. www.csmonitor.com/USA/ Education/2012/0623/40-years-later-Title-IX-is-still-fighting-perception-it- hurt-men-s-sports. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Gra" , E. J. “Building a Respect Culture.” American Prospect . 9 January 2013. http://pros pect.org/article/building-respect-culture. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Guerrilla Girls. “Guerrilla Girls: Reinventing the ‘F’ Word: Feminism.” 2011. www. guerrillagirls.com/#open. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Hesse-Biber, Sharlene. Feminist Research Practice: A Primer . SAGE, 2014. INCITE!: Women of Color against Violence, eds. Color of Violence: ! e INCITE!

Anthology . South End Press, 2006. Johnson, Stefanie K., and David R. Hekman. “Women and Minorities Are Penalized

for Promoting Diversity.” Harvard Business Review . 23 March 2016. https://hbr. org/2016/03/women-and-minorities-are-penalized-for-promoting-diversity. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Levin, Amy. Questions for a New Century: Women’s Studies and Integrative Learning, a Report to the National Women’s Studies Association . 2007. www.nwsa.org/Files/ Resources/WS_Integrative_Learning_Levine.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Lorde, Audre. Sister Outsider . Crossing Press, 1984. Martin, Courtney E. “Girls Tweeting (Not Twerking) $ eir Way to Power.” New York

Times . 4 September 2013. McRobbie, Angela. “Post-Feminism and Popular Culture.” Feminist Media Studies ,

vol. 4, no. 3, 2004, pp. 255–264. National Center for Education Statistics. “Fast Facts: Title IX.” Institute of Education

Sciences . 2011. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=93. Accessed 7 July 2017.

National Organization for Women. “Founding: Setting the Stage.” 3 June 2013. Web. Ohm, Rachel. “Colby Student’s ‘Party with Consent’ Gets the Nod at 30 Campuses.”

Portland Press Herald . 25 May 2014. Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. “Guide to Being a Straight Ally.” 1st edition. Sarkeesian, Anita. “Retro Sexism and Uber Ironic Advertising.” Feminist Frequency . 21

September 2012. https://feministfrequency.com/video/retro-sexism-uber-ironic- advertising/. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Seely, Megan. Fight Like a Girl: How to Be a Fearless Feminist . New York University Press, 2007.

FEMINIST PRAXIS 231

Shrewsbury, Carolyn. “What Is Feminist Pedagogy?” Women’s Studies Quarterly , vol. 3, no. 4, 1993, pp. 8–16.

Simonson, Jocelyn. “Bail Keeps $ ese Moms in Jail on Mother’s Day. So Strangers Are Posting It for $ em.” Washington Post . 12 May 2017.

Smith, Stacy L., Marc Choueiti, and Jessica Stern. “Occupational Aspirations: What Are G-Rated Films Teaching Children about the World of Work?” Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media . 2012. https://seejane.org/wp-content/uploads/key- ! ndings-occupational-aspirations-2013.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Spark Movement. “About Us.” Spark Movement . April 2017. www.sparkmovement.org/ about/. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Traister, Rebecca. “Ladies, We Have a Problem.” New York Times . 20 July 2011. UNICEF. “$ e State of the World’s Children: Women and Children, $ e Double Divi-

dend of Gender Equality.” 2007. www.unicef.org/publications/! les/$ e_State_of_ the_Worlds__Children__2007_e.pdf. Accessed 26 August 2013.

Valenti, Jessica. Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters . Seal Press, 2007.

——. “SlutWalks and the Future of Feminism.” Capital Times . 8 June 2011. Web. Warner, Judith. “$ e Opt-Out Generation Wants Back In.” New York Times . 7 August

2013. Weiss, Sasha. “$ e Power of #yesallwomen.” New Yorker . 26 May 2014. “What We Do: Our Mission and Vision.” Men Can Stop Rape . www.mencanstoprape.

org/Our-Mission-History/. Accessed 5 June 2014. White Ribbon Australia. “White Ribbon Australia: Fact Sheet 1—Origin of the Cam-

paign.” 2017. www.whiteribbon.org.au/understand-domestic-violence/facts-vio lence-women/. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Women’s Sports Foundation. “Title IX Myths and Facts.” 2011. www.womenssports foundation.org/advocate/title-ix-issues/what-is-title-ix/title-ix-myths-facts/. Ac- cessed 7 July 2017.

Yoo, Lindsey. “Solidarity Is for White Women and Asian People Are Funny.” Filthy Freedom: Race, Sexuality, Culture . 22 August 2013. www.! lthyfreedom.com/ blog/solidarity-is-for-white-women-and-asian-people-are-funny. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Zeilinger, Julie. A Little F’d Up: Why Feminism Is Not a Dirty Word . Seal Press, 2012.

Suggested Readings Ayvazian, Andrea. “Interrupting the Cycle of Oppression: $ e Role of Allies as Agents

of Change.” In Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study . Ed. Paula Rothenberg. 7th edition. Worth, 2007, pp. 724–730.

Baumgardner, Jennifer, and Amy Richards. Grassroots: A Field Guide for Feminist Activ- ism . Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2004.

Baxandall, Rosalyn, and Linda Gordon, eds. Dear Sisters: Dispatches from the Women’s Liberation Movement . Basic Books, 2001.

Bennett, Jessica. Feminist Fight Club. Harper Wave, 2016. ——. “How Not to Be Manterrupted in Meetings.” Time . 20 January 2015. Collins, Patricia Hill. On Intellectual Activism . Temple University Press, 2012.

232 FEMINIST PRAXIS

Desmond-Harris, Jenee. “Implicit Bias Means We’re All Probably At Least a Little Bit Racist.” Vox . 15 August 2016. www.vox.com/2014/12/26/7443979/racism- implicit-racial-bias. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Feinberg, JonaRose Ja" e. “Postfeminism.” In ! e Women’s Movement Today: An Encyclo- pedia of ! ird-Wave Feminism . Ed. Leslie Heywood. Greenwood Press, 2006.

Finley, Laura, and Emily Reynolds Stringer. Beyond Burning Bras: Feminist Activism for Everyone . Praeger, 2010.

Frank, Gillian. “Anti-Trans Bathroom Nightmare Has Its Roots in Racial Segregation.” Slate . 10 November 2015. www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/11/10/anti_trans_ bathroom_propaganda_has_roots_in_racial_segregation.html. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Hernandez, Daisy, and Bushra Rehman, eds. Colonize ! is! Young Women of Color on Today’s Feminism . Seal Press, 2002.

Kingcade, Tyler. “$ is Is Why Every College is Talking About Bystander Intervention.” Hu# Post . 8 February 2016. www.hu# ngtonpost.com/entry/colleges-bystander- intervention_us_56abc134e4b0010e80ea021d. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Marcotte, Amanda. Get Opinionated: A Progressive’s Guide to Finding Your Voice (and Taking a Little Action) . Seal Press, 2010.

Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. “Guide to Being a Straight Ally.” www. p% ag.org/sites/default/! les/guide%20to%20being%20a%20straight%20ally.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Rush, Curtis. “Cop Apologizes for ‘Sluts’ Remark at Law School.” Toronto Star. 18 Feb- ruary 2011.

Stampler, Laura. “SlutWalks Sweep the Nation.” Hu" ngton Post . 20 April 2011. www. hu# ngtonpost.com/2011/04/20/slutwalk-united-states-city_n_851725.html. Ac- cessed 7 July 2017.

Stewart, Nikki Ayanna. “Transform the World: What You Can Do with a Degree in Women’s Studies.” Ms., Spring 2007, pp. 65–66.

Sullivan, J. Courtney, and Courtney E. Martin. Click: When We Knew We Were Feminists . Perseus Books, 2010.

Turner, Cory. “Bias Isn’t Just a Police Problem, It’s a Preschool Problem.” NPR . 28 Sep- tember 2016. www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/09/28/495488716/bias-isnt-just-a- police-problem-its-a-preschool-problem. Accessed 7 July 2017.

Valenti, Jessica. Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters . Seal Press, 2007.

Zeilinger, Julie. A Little F’d Up: Why Feminism Is Not a Dirty Word . Seal Press, 2012.

233

#notallmen : A Twitter hashtag created by men’s rights activists to contradict the effort to make visible and to critique sexism and violence

#yesallwomen : A Twitter hashtag created in response to #notallmen to call out misogynist violence and sexism

ableism : Institutionalized practices and individual actions and beliefs that posit the able-bodied as the norm. It works to promote negative images of disabled women, such as the myth that it is not possible for someone with a disability to have a positive and equal relationship

act-like-a-man box : Paul Kivel’s articulation of masculine gender norms and expectations that men are socialized to adhere to

activism : Conscious efforts to raise awareness about a social problem and and/or to bring about social change

allies : Defined by Andrea Ayvazian as “a member of a dominant group in our society who works to dismantle any form of oppression from which she or he receives the benefit”

backlash : Popularized by journalist Susan Faludi in her book of the same name, and refers to media sources who claimed that feminism was to blame for women’s dissatisfaction with the results of feminist activism. Characterizes these claims as part of a larger cultural resistance to true liberation and equality for women

beauty myth : In Naomi Wolf ’s 1991 book of the same name, she argued that orienting women’s attention to their physical appearances is as much about directing women’s behavior and time as it is surveilling their appearances and conformity to a narrowly defined ideal of female beauty

bootstraps myth : The idea that upward class mobility is not only possible but probable, and that individual will and hard work are the only requisites for moving out of poverty and into the middle class

bystander intervention : A technique for preventing rape and sexual assault, which teaches people (bystanders) to intervene when they spot a situation (on the street, at a party, in their residence hall, etc.) which seems headed in that direction

Glossary

234 GLOSSARY

cisgender : A person who experiences congruence between their gender assignment and gender identity

cissexual : A person who experiences congruence between their assigned sex and their gender identity

classism : Oppression based on social class or socioeconomic status compulsory heterosexuality : Social messaging, policies, and practices that privilege

heterosexual behavior and identity consumer capitalism : An economic and social theory building on the definition of

capitalism as an economic system based on private goods, private property, the accumulation of wealth, and free market economics and laws of supply and demand. Consumer capitalism adapts this economic theory to cultural value attached to aspirational consumption and consumerism

contraception: Reproductive technologies that prevent pregnancy crowdsourcing : Social media platforms that allow multiple users to contribute to the

building of a text, database, or website

double bind : When an individual faces two equally problematic choices (e.g., for a woman, being sexually active, or choosing not to be sexually active)

egalitarian : A belief in human equality, especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges

electoral politics : Processes associated with the democratic principles of representative government

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) : Proposed constitutional amendment introduced in 1923 as an effort to cast in policy equal rights for women. It reads: “[e]quality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” The amendment was never ratified

everyday activism : The notion that activism happens on a daily basis, with everyday actions that may reject or challenge oppressive practices

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) : An act passed in 1993 that guarantees U.S. employees twelve weeks of unpaid leave to attend to family responsibilities or personal illness

female genital cutting/female circumcision : Procedures involving partial or total removal or modification of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for cultural or other nonmedical reasons

feminine mystique : Concept introduced by Betty Friedan in her 1963 book of the same name, arguing that domestic responsibilities alone were unfulfilling to middle-class, educated women

femininity : Socially defined principles associated with the feminine gender feminism/feminist : The social and political movement advocating for women’s equality feminist action : Associated with achieving the goals and aims of feminism Freudian : Refers to the work of Sigmund Freud, the “father of psychoanalysis,” who

developed influential theories about human psychology

gender : A social concept referring to a complex set of characteristics and behaviors prescribed for a particular sex by society and learned through the socialization process. The socially treated expectations for the looks, behavior, and functions of

GLOSSARY 235

that sex are, however, often perceived as innate and not learned. Identifies people as feminine or masculine; see also social constructionism

gender assignment and gender status : The gender assigned to a baby when born, translated into gender-specific treatment and socialization throughout childhood

gender comportment/expression : The expression of the gendered sense of self, which Susan Stryker defines as “bodily actions such as how we use our voices, cross our legs, hold our heads, wear our clothes, dance around the room, throw a ball, walk in high heels”

gender display : The presentation of self as a kind of gendered person through dress, cosmetics, adornments, and both permanent and reversible body markers

gender identity : A person’s gendered sense of self gender ranking : Social value attached to masculine and feminine attributes (with

higher value attached to masculinity) gender socialization : The processes (social feedback, institutional organization,

policies) that communicate socially appropriate roles for boys and men and girls and women; see also social constructionism

gender wage gap : The common gap between men’s and women’s earnings, with women generally receiving lower pay

gendered double standard : A double standard of behavior for men and women (e.g., in the workplace and in personal relationships), where the same behavior is judged very differently depending on whether the person engaging in the behavior is a man or woman

hegemonic feminism : According to Chela Sandoval, a feminism that was “white led, marginalize[d] the activism and world views of women of color, focuse[d] mainly on the United States, and treat[ed] sexism as the ultimate oppression”

heteronormativity : Cultural, material, and institutional messages and policies that validate and encourage heterosexuality

heterosexism : Attitudes, actions, and institutional practices that privilege heterosexuality and subordinate people on the basis of their gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender orientation

Hollaback : A nonprofit online-based activist movement to end street harassment homophobia : The irrational fear, distrust, hatred of, and discrimination against

homosexuals honor killings : A tradition whereby a man is obliged to kill a close female blood

relative if she does something that is believed to tarnish the family honor horizontal hostility : Whereby members of marginalized groups police each other’s

behavior and/or appearance. Horizontal hostility happens when a member of a marginalized group identifies with the values of the dominant group

horizontal segregation of labor : Describes the segregation of men and women into different occupational/professional fields

ideology : Ideas, attitudes, and values that represent the interests of a group of people. Cultures generally support a dominant ideology, as well as several other minor or less powerful ideological systems. People who accept the dominant beliefs of a culture are more successful within the culture and thus part of the dominant ideology. The dominant ideology includes the ideas, attitudes, and values that

236 GLOSSARY

represent the interests of the dominant group(s); for example, the ideological role of the idealized nuclear family is to devalue other family forms

infanticide : The murder of infants; historically a strategy for reproductive control in the absence of other forms of contraceptive technology

informed consent : The practice by which participants in modern-day medical research studies receive a substantial education about the potential side effects and outcomes of participation in such a study

institutions : Social arrangements that have survived over time and become standard or “normalized” so that we forget they are only one possible response or way of organizing a situation. For example, the nuclear family, the military, and a capitalist economy all provide formulas for routine action (like scripts for the actors), backed up by ideology that stresses their rightness as well as their being the only possibility

internalized oppression : Attitudes and behavior of some oppressed people that reflect the negative, harmful, stereotypical beliefs of the dominant group directed at oppressed people; when a victim of oppression accepts her situation as natural, normal, or deserved and enables her oppression to take place at least partly through her own efforts; the behaviors include holding negative beliefs about people in their own group. An example of internalized sexism is the view of some women that they and other women are inferior to men, which causes them to adopt oppressive attitudes and behaviors toward women

intersectionality : The ways multiple forms of oppression and identity interact to create someone’s experience of and access to social influence and individual and institutional power

intersex : Defined by the Intersex Society of North America as “a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male”

intimate partner violence : Physical, emotional, sexual, or other forms of violence and abuse that take place between intimate partners

ladder of engagement : Within the context of activism, Courtney Martin refers to this process whereby “someone signs a petition, before long they’re creating their own, then running a full-fledged campaign”

LGBTQ : Acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning; reflects a range of sexual and gender identities and orientations distinct from traditional heterosexuality

macro/micro : Macro refers to viewing social issues from a structural, institutional, and global perspective; micro refers to the individual or local perspective on such issues

mansplaining : Popularized by Rebecca Solnit and defined by urbandictionary.com as “[t]o explain in a patronizing manner, assuming total ignorance on the part of those listening”

marked and unmarked : One of the markers of privilege is invisibility, and one of the ways this invisibility manifests is through identity terms and labels. In other words, dominant groups that are a part of the mythical norm have the privilege of being unmarked and unremarkable because of their presumed neutrality and normality

masculine god language : Linguistic and imagery conventions referring to and conceptualizing God as male, despite theologians’ claims that God is not to be considered in sexual terms at all, despite such terminology

GLOSSARY 237

masculinity : The set of characteristics or attributes traditionally ascribed to maleness mythical norm : A dominant group and a marginalized group; one group is considered

the norm, with their counterpart being the “other.” According to Audre Lorde, the mythical norm is “usually defined as white, thin, male, young, heterosexual, christian, and financially secure”

objectification : Attitudes and behaviors by which people treat others as if they were “things”; the objectification of women through advertising images

occupational segregation of labor : Explains the pay gap by noting that even when men and women have the same occupation, women tend to be represented in lower ranks than men within the same occupation. Explains the pay gap in terms of the tendency for occupations mainly held by men to have substantially higher pay rates and status as compared to those mainly held by women. Cf. vertical segregation of labor

online activism : A form of feminist activism taking place online, including social media activities, online petitions, and community building

oppression : Prejudice and discrimination directed toward a group and promoted by the ideologies and practices of multiple social institutions. The critical elements differentiating oppression from simple prejudice and discrimination are that it is a group phenomenon and that institutional power and authority are used to support prejudices and enforce discriminatory behaviors in systematic ways. Everyone is socialized to participate in oppressive practices, either as direct and indirect perpetrators or passive beneficiaries, or—as with some oppressed peoples—by directing discriminatory behaviors at members of one’s own group

opting out : Emerged in the 1990s; suggests that feminism had failed in its aims to liberate women through access to education and economic self-sufficiency and that, instead, professional and educated women were returning to stay-at-home motherhood

patriarchy : Literally, rule of the fathers; a family, social group, or society in which men hold power and are dominant figures; a social order in which men, for the most part, have primary access to resources and hence to power and authority that they use to maintain themselves in power and resources

the personal is political : A feminist and women’s studies idea that came about in the second wave; it is a starting point for explaining how things taken as personal or idiosyncratic have broader social, political, and economic causes and consequences. In other words, situations that we are encouraged to view as personal are actually part of broader cultural patterns and arrangements

postfeminism : The premise that the aims of feminist movement(s) have been achieved and that we live in a society where women experience a full range of choices equal to those of men

praxis : The intersection of theory and practice, involving a visible and deliberate set of actions informed by theory, by research, and by evidence

privilege : Benefits and power from institutional inequalities; individuals and groups may be privileged without realizing, recognizing, or even wanting it

racism : Racial prejudice and discrimination supported by institutional power and authority. In the United States, racism is based on the ideology of white (European) supremacy and is used to the advantage of white people and the disadvantage of

238 GLOSSARY

peoples of color. Also, a system of advantage based on race. In this sense, racism is not a personal ideology based on racial prejudice, but a system involving cultural messages and institutional practices and policies as well as the beliefs and actions of individuals. Also defined by antiracist educators as “prejudice plus power”

rape culture : As defined by Lynn Phillips, a lecturer in communication at the University of Massachusetts–Amherst, “a culture in which dominant cultural ideologies, media images, social practices, and societal institutions support and condone sexual abuse by normalizing, trivializing and eroticizing male violence against women and blaming victims for their own abuse”

Rape Shield Laws : A set of policies that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s on the state level preventing a rape victim’s past sexual history from being used as evidence in a rape trial

Roe v. Wade : Landmark 1973 Supreme Court case that made abortion legal

sex : The specific biological categories of female and male; identification by sex is based on a variety of factors including chromosomal patterns, hormonal makeup, and genital structures

sex/gender system : A set of interrelated biological, institutional, psychological, and ideological elements that classifies people by biological sex; organizes a division of labor that patterns productive and reproductive activities; instills within individuals an internalized self-definition as woman or man; and promotes itself as true, proper, and appropriate

sexism : Material and ideological prejudice and discrimination based on sex and gender enacted and supported by institutional authority

sexual orientation : A term suggesting a person’s preferred sexuality slacktivism : A derisive term that has been coined to reflect what some have critiqued

as “easy” actions that can be taken through, for example, social media, and that sometimes become a substitute for what many perceive as more demanding forms of activism such as letter-writing campaigns, lobbying legislators, protests and rallies, or other types of advocacy

slut shaming : Social messaging that judges women’s sexual conduct SlutWalk : A grassroots and social media campaign led by Heather Jarvis and Sonya

Barnett that emerged in major cities across the United States and Canada, in which organized thousands took to the streets with chants and signs to protest victim- blaming attitudes for sexual assault

social constructionism : The view that gender, race, and sexual orientation are defined by human beings operating out of particular cultural contexts and ideologies. The definitions are systematically transmitted, and attitudes and behaviors purported to be appropriate are learned through childhood socialization and life experience. In this view, for example, heterosexuality, manhood, and womanhood are learned— socially constructed—not innate

socioeconomic status (SES) : Economic and social indicators of groups generally defined by a combination of income, occupation, educational attainment, and accumulated wealth; sometimes referred to as social class, SES is also communicated by various language, cultural, and taste markers/associations

sociological imagination : Foundational concept of the discipline of sociology posited by C. Wright Mills, who argues that “the individual can understand his own experience and gauge his own fate only by locating himself within his period,

GLOSSARY 239

that he can know his own chances in life only by becoming aware of those of all individuals in his circumstances”

suffrage : The right to vote and have representation in participatory democracy symbolic annihilation : Described by Tuchman and colleagues in 1978 as the relative

absence of marginalized groups in the mass media, which has the effect of signaling to the public that these groups are less important and beneath notice

Take Back the Night : An activist effort that began in 1976 in Brussels, Belgium. It uses marches, protests, and demonstrations as well as candlelight vigils and accompanying speakers to call for the elimination of violence against women

threshold concept : Defined by Meyer and Land as a core disciplinary concept that is both troublesome and transformative and that allows students to enter into new ways of disciplinary thinking

Title IX : This part of the Educational Amendments of 1972 guarantees equal participation in any educational program or activity that receives federal financial resources. Though primarily associated with advancing women’s equal participation in athletic activities, Title IX also affected women’s achievement of postsecondary degrees, pay equity within schools, and any other discrimination taking place within an educational setting

trans* : A shortened term to encompass the various gender- and sexuality-based identities that depart from the mythical heterosexual and binary gender norms

transgender : An individual for whom there is a lack of congruence between their gender assignment and gender identity

transphobia : Julia Serano defines this as “an irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against people whose gendered identities, appearances, or behaviors deviate from societal norms”

Twitter/tweeting : Social media platform that allows users to post links and messages of fewer than 140 characters

vertical segregation of labor: Explains the pay gap by noting the fact that even in fields where there is a more even mix of men and women working, women tend to be clustered in positions with lower pay and prestige

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) : A U.S. law passed in 1994 that offered coordinated efforts to develop awareness and prevent violence

waves : Most commonly used to describe chronological groupings of feminist activism in the United States

Women’s and Gender Studies (WGS) : An interdisciplinary academic field of study emerging from feminist movement in the 19th and 20th centuries; examines the experiences, status, and disciplinary contributions of women in academic and extra-academic sites of inquiry

women’s liberation : Second-wave feminist activism in the United States in the 1960s work–life balance : The relationship between the policies and lived experiences of

working families, particularly those who are managing the demands of paid labor with the demands of personal and work responsibilities, including childcare and eldercare

241

Note: bold page numbers indicate tables; italic page numbers indicate figures; numbers preceded by n are chapter endnote numbers.

Index

#blacklivesmatter 97, 184 #effyourbeautystandards 203 #everydaysexism 203 #girlslikeus 203 #notallmen 117, 203, 233 #notbuyingit 217–218 #oscarssowhite #oscarsstillsowhite

22, 218 #rainbowrollcall 184 #sayhername 203 #solidarityisforwhitewomen 202 #yesallwomen 117, 202–203, 233 ableism/able-bodied privilege 91, 91 ,

97–98, 150, 151, 223, 233 abortion 13, 14, 16, 25; sex-selective 16,

211 act-like-a-man box 55–56, 233 action research 197 activism x, xii, xiii–xiv, 2, 8, 10, 22, 56,

90, 233; and breastfeeding 143; crowdsourcing 118–119; everyday 203–205, 225, 234; in feminist movement history see feminist movement, history of; and feminist praxis 195, 197–205, 216–223; hashtag see hashtag activism; with limited capital 199–200; menstrual 16, 226; misconceptions about 224–225; online

200–202, 237; trans* rights xv; and women’s health/birth control 168–169, 172–173

Adair, Vivyan: “Branded with Infamy” 166, 168

Adams, Natalie Guice 45 advertisements 76, 82, 207 Affordable Care Act (2010) 107, 109 African American Policy Forum: “Black

Girls Matter” 50 Akinola, Modupe 68–69 Allen, Paula Gunn: The Sacred Hoop 13 allies 7, 11, 206, 210, 215, 225, 233 Alter, Charlotte: “Seeing Sexism from

Both Sides” 81 American Beauty 43, 44 American Psychological Association

223 American Student Government

Association 48–49 American Veterinary Medicine

Association 77 Americans with Disabilities Act (1990)

98, 132 Andrews, Erin 164, 165 Angry Black Woman 54 Anzaldua, Gloria 147 Archives of Sexual Behavior 74

242 INDEX

Armstrong, Elizabeth 129–130 art/artists 216 Arter, Neesha 192 athletics see sports The Atlantic 175, 181, 182 Attention Deficit Disorder 38 autism 119 Ayvazian, Andrea 205

backlash 15, 206–211; against transgender rights 36

“Ban Bossy” campaign 53 Barnett, Sonya 219 Bartky, Sandra 72, 208–209 Bates, Laura 203 Baumgardner, Jennifer: Manifesta 17 Beasts of the Southern Wild 44 A Beautiful Mind 43, 44 beauty myth 168, 233 Bechdel, Allison: “Dykes to Watch Out

For” 21 Bechdel test 21, 23 Bennett, Jessica: Feminist Fight Club

204–205 Berg, Alex 209–210 Berger, Michele Tracy: Transforming

Scholarship 2, 194, 195–196, 197 Bettis, Pamela 45 Bian, Lin 39 Bianchi, Suzanne M. 160 Bieber, Justin 21 The Big Lebowski 82 bigotry 93–94 biological determinism 59–61, 81 birth control see contraception Black Lives Matter 97, 116, 210–211 Black Power movement 174 Black Swan 44 black women see women of color blogs 5, 9, 121, 200, 201, 202, 214 bodies 70–75, 168–173, 208–209; and

clothing 71–73, 72 , 73 ; and feminist praxis 218–223; and privilege/ oppression 121–125; and tattooing 73–75

Boersma, Katelyn 70 bootstraps myth 125–126, 131, 134, 233

Boston Marathon 89 , 90, 131–132 Boston Women’s Health Collective

168–169 Boxer, Marilyn J. 18 Boyer, Kate 75–76 Braless 180 Brannon, Robert 153 Braveheart 43, 44 breastfeeding 13, 25; and feminist praxis

213, 214–215; and intersectionality 141–144, 141 , 144 , 148, 155, 181; and privilege/oppression 109–110

Briggs, Arnie 90 Bring it On 45 The Bro Code: How Contemporary Culture

Creates Sexist Men 82, 124 Brown, Michael 97 Bunch, Charlotte: “Not By Degrees”

195 Bureau of Labor Statistics 61, 64,

105–106, 107 Burton, Caitlin 70 Bush, George W. 154 bystander intervention 205, 221, 222 , 233

Caddyshack 82 Cade, Toni: “The Pill” 174 A Call to Men 57 Carmon, Erin 21 Cash, Johnny: “A Boy Named Sue” 67 Cataldi, Sue 7 Catholic Church 42 Center for American Women and

Politics 47 Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) 141–142 CEOs 65, 156 Charm School 166–167 Chase, Cheryl 34 cheerleading 45 child care 9–10, 15, 25, 39, 155, 157 childbirth 169–171, 169–170 ; and

cesarean section 170–171; and infant mortality rates 171–172, 171 ; and patriarchy 169

children: and boy’s/girls’ names 66–67; intersexual 33–34; and prisons 50; and

INDEX 243

social construction of gender 29–31, 33, 42, 42–43, 57–59; and violence 26n3, see also education

children’s toys 30, 31, 33, 43, 80, 120 , 121 Christian Science Monitor 213 Christianity 41–42 Chugh, Dolly 68–69 Cimpian, Andrei 39 cisgender/cissexual 35, 36, 79, 97, 119,

204, 234 Civil Rights Act (1964) 14 class x, 4, 5, 8, 31, 54, 142–143, 144, 147,

148, 152–158; and birth control 172; and femininity 166–167; mobility 94, 125–131, 127 , 128 , 132, 132 ; and privilege/oppression 106–107, 110–111; and 2016 presidential election 175, 176

clerical work 61, 62 , 63, 75–77 Clinton, Bill 108 Clinton, Hillary 47, 54, 175–179 clothing 53, 71–72, 73 , 82; dress codes

37–38, 80 Clutter, Aaron 71, 72 collaboration xiii Combahee River Collective 147, 149 comic books 71 community 196–197 Connell, Raewyn 51, 159, 163–164, 168 conscription 13 consumer capitalism 153, 163, 234 contraception 13, 14, 25, 172–174, 203,

234 Coontz, Stephanie 106; “Why Gender

Equality Stalled” 9, 10 Corry, Maureen 169, 170 Cox, Nial 174 Crawley, Sara 4–5 Creed 218 Crenshaw, Kimberlé 15, 50, 151;

“Mapping the Margins” 152–153 critical thinking 195–196 crowdsourcing 118–119, 234 Culp-Ressler, Tara 123

Dargis, Manohla 21, 22 David, Deborah 153

Davis, Geena 216 DeLauro, Rosa 108–109 Delavan-Darien High School, Wisconsin

99–100 Dempsey, Rachel 65 The Departed 43, 44 department/big box stores 78, 80,

82, 121 Desmond-Harris, Jenee: “Implicit Bias

Means We’re All Probably at Least a Little Bit Racist” 205

Dill, Bonnie Thornton 154–155 disability 151–152 diversity-valuing behaviors 210 divorce 12, 13, 105, 106–107 domestic labor 39, 41, 75, 147, 155,

159–160; in heterosexual/same-sex households 159, 160–161, 161 , 162

domestic violence 14, 15, 16, 25–26n3 dominant ideologies 102–103 double bind 53–54, 66, 110–111, 234 Douglas, Susan J. 207 dress codes 37–38, 80 Duck Dynasty 163 Duke, Lisa 167, 168 Duvernay, Ava 22

education 10, 12, 16, 17–18, 23–24, 60; and dress codes 37–38, 80; and gender socialization 37–39; and gendered names 67–69; and perception of intelligence 38–39; and privilege/oppression 127–131, 128 , 132, 132 ; STEM 20, 181; and student government positions 47–49; and Title IX 14–15; and 2016 presidential election 177, 177 ; women underrepresented in 18, 20; Women’s and Gender Studies see WGS

The Education of Shelby Knox 199 Edwards, Laurie 104 empowerment 196, 223 England, Kim 75, 76 The English Patient 43, 44 Engstrom, Erika 165–166 enlightened sexism 207 Equal Pay Act (1963) 14

244 INDEX

Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) 12–13, 24, 234

everyday activism 203–205, 225, 234 Everyday Sexism project 203

Facebook 35–36, 175, 200, 201 Faludi, Susan: Backlash 206–207 family x, 12, 57–59, 60; and feminist

praxis 213–215; and gender socialization 37, 81; and housework see domestic labor; and intersectionality 155–162; and paid leave 39, 155, 156–158, 213; policies affecting 107–113; and privilege/oppression 104–105, 107–113

Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act (FAMILY, proposed) 108–109

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA, 1993) 107–108, 155–156, 234

father/fatherhood 58 Fausto-Sterling, Anne 33–34 female circumcision/genital cutting 16,

24, 212, 234 FemBotCollective 118 femininity 51, 51 , 52, 53, 54, 81, 104,

208–209, 234; and beauty ideals 163, 165–168, 209; and bodies/clothing 71–73; and tattooing 74–75, see also gender ranking

Feminism Is For Everybody (hooks) 24, 25–26n3

feminism/feminists 4–17; backlash against 15, 206–211; death of 5–6; defined 4, 234; men as 7, 204, 206; stereotypes/misconceptions of 5–11

feminist action 7, 15, 198, 234 feminist activism x, xii, xiii–xiv, 8, 10, 16 feminist movement, history of 4, 7–8,

10–17, 173–174; first wave 10–13; second wave see women’s liberation movement; third wave 15–16, 200, 204; fourth wave/contemporary 16–17, 24; and ERA 12–13; and Native American tribes 13

feminist praxis see praxis, feminist feminist stance xi, xiii–xiv, 3, 4–5, 21, 31,

193

Feminist Theory from Margin to Center (hooks) 4

Ferguson, Missouri 97 Finch, Sam Dylan 97 flash mob protests 216 Flynn, Francis 68 FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act,

1993) 107–108, 155–156, 234 Fortini, Amanda: “The ‘Bitch’ and the

‘Ditz’ ” 54 Freedman, Estelle 4, 19, 145 Freeman, Jo 69, 72–73 Fremstad, Shawn 151 Freud, Sigmund 57–58, 234 Friedan, Betty 198; The Feminine

Mystique 147–148, 234 Frisby, Cynthia 165–166 Frozen 44 Frye, Marilyn 92–93

Gabriel, Paul 63 Gamergate 117 Geena Davis Institute on Gender in

Media 43, 212 Gemelli, Marcella 111 gender 234–235; as binary construct

19, 32, 34, 35, 57; as non-binary see intersexuality; as performative 33; and sex 32–36; social construction of see social construction of gender

gender assignment/status 29–31, 35, 235 gender bias tests 21–23 gender comportment/expression 33, 34,

35, 235 gender display 33, 235 gender expression 33, 35, 51, 52, 53,

60–61, 207 gender identity 31, 33, 34, 51, 235; and

biological determinism 59–61; and evaluation of prior knowledge 79–80; and psychoanalysis 57–58; and social media 35–36

gender inequality 5, 8, 9–10; and marriage 9, 10, 10 ; and voting/ property rights 12

gender norms 51–52, 54; negative outcomes of 56

INDEX 245

gender policing 52, 55–56 gender ranking 52–55, 60–61, 64, 164,

235; and naming of children 67 gender reveal parties 80–81 gender socialization 36–39, 60, 65,

101, 235; discussion question on 81; and dress codes see dress codes; and education 37–39; evaluating prior knowledge of 79; and household chores/allowances 41; and leadership 49; and sport 45

gender wage gap 9, 14, 40 , 61–63, 64, 64 , 78, 79, 207, 212, 235

Genderbread Person 29 , 32 gendered double standard 53–54, 66, 68,

235 gendered violence see violence,

gender-based genetics 60 The Gerontologist 105 Gillibrand, Kirsten 108–109 Gilligan, Carol 58 Ginty, Molly 214 Girl Scouts (GSUSA) 36, 217 Givhan, Robin 154 GLAAD 21, 22, 120–121 Gladiator 43, 44 Glee 45 Goldberg, Abbie E.: “ ‘Doing’ and

‘Undoing’ Labor” 161 Goldin, Claudia 78 Gomez, Carlos Andres: Man Up 57 Gordon, Linda: Feminism Unfinished 15 Gould, Lois: “X: A Fabulous Child’s

Story” 29–30 Graff, E.J. 205 Grant, Adam 54–55, 65–66 Green, Laci 180 Grzanka, Patrick 145, 148–149 Guante 56–57 The Guardian 175 Guerrilla Girls 216

Hall, Stuart 167 Hamilton, Laura 129–130 Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle 82 Harris, Lynn: “Mrs. Feminist” 70

hashtag activism 22, 97, 117, 175, 184, 202–203, 217–218

Hawkes, Diana 74 health/health care x, 103–104, 152 hegemonic feminism 148, 235 Heilman, Madelin 65 Hekman, David R. 210 The Help 44 Henley, Megan 171 Henley, Nancy 69, 72–73 Henry, Astrid: “From a Mindset to a

Movement” 200 Hesse-Biber, Sharlene: Feminist Research

Practice 94 heteronormativity 105, 112, 150, 235 heterosexism 91, 94, 102, 122, 150, 235 Hewlett, Sylvia Ann 156; Off-Ramps and

On-Ramps 157 Hidden Figures 44 Higher Education Research Institute 49 Hill, Anita 15–16 Hill Collins, Patricia 168; Black Feminist

Thought 166; “Toward a New Vision” 147

Hinduism 42 Hlavka, Heather 122 Hogeland, Lisa: “Fear of Feminism” 8 Hollaback 221–223, 235 Holliday, Tess 203 Hollywood movies 5, 212, 217; and

activism 22; application exercise on 79; and gender bias tests 21–23; and social construction of gender 43–45, 44 , 46 , see also Oscars

homophobia 7, 206, 235 honor killings 16, 235 hooks, bell 11; Feminism Is For Everybody

24, 25–26n3; Feminist Theory from Margin to Center 4; “Rethinking the Nature of Work” 147

horizontal hostility 52, 94–95, 235 horizontal segregation of labor 63, 155,

158–159, 235 hospitals 142–143 housework see domestic labor Howards, Greg 165 Howe, Florence 20–21

246 INDEX

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire 44 Hunt, Jane 11 Hurst, Allison 179 Hurt, Byron: “Why I Am a Male

Feminist” 124–125 The Hurt Locker 43, 44

immigrant women 152–153 Immigration Act (1990) 152 implicit bias 204–205 INCITE! 198–199 individuation 58 infanticide 16, 236 informed consent 173, 236 Institute on Gender and Media 216–217 institutions x, 16, 37–52, 59, 60, 77, 236;

and intersectionality 152–153, 183; masculine/feminine opposition in 51, 51 ; and privilege/oppression 39, 90, 101–102; privilege/oppression in 90, 101–102, 121, 123

intelligence, perceptions of 38–39 interconnectedness xiii, xiv internalized oppression 52, 94, 236 Internet 21–22, 25, 82, 184; activism 199,

see also blogs; social media intersectional feminism/feminists 8, 180 intersectionality x, 16, 141–184, 197; and

bodies 168–173; and breastfeeding 142–144, 148, 155, 181; and childbirth see childbirth; and class see under class; and contraception 172–174; definitions/key terms in 145–150, 236; discussion questions on 181–182; evaluating prior knowledge on 179–180; and feminine beauty ideal 163, 165–168; and gendered violence 152, 153; goals of 154–155; and institutions 152–153, 183; and language/images/symbols 162–168; and learning roadblocks 150–155; and micro-macro-levels 150–152, 158; and praxis 153; in scholarship 19; skills assessment for 181; and sport 164–165, 182–183, 183 ; as threshold concept ix, xiv, 4, 145;

2016 presidential election case study 175–179, 176 , 177 , 178 , 182; and work/family 155–162

Intersex Society of North America 33, 34

intersexuality 33–35, 236; and the law 34–35

Iron-Jawed Angels (film) 23 Isla Vista shooting (2014) 117, 202–203 Islam 42

Jarvis, Heather 219 Johnson, Allan 101, 169; The Gender

Knot 52–53 Johnson, David R. 69 Johnson, Katherine M. 69 Johnson, Stephanie K. 210 Jones, Abigail: “The Fight to End Period

Shaming Is Going Mainstream” 226 Jong, Erica 6 Juno 44

Kaepernick, Colin 116 Kalin, Jonathan 200 Katz, Lawrence 78 Keenan, Kelly 34–35 Kendall, Mikki 202 Kimmel, Michael 100, 153; “Solving the

‘Boy Crisis’ in Schools” 38 Kivel, Paul 55 Kliff, Sarah 47 Knox, Shelby 199 Kohlberg, Lawrence 58

LA Ink 75 Land, Ray ix–x, 239 language, marked/unmarked 119–121,

120 , 236 Larson, Brie 43–44 Latina women 146 Lawrence, Jennifer 80 Laxton, Beck 30 leadership 65, 77, 196 lean In 53 learning roadblocks x, xi–xii, xv, 3, 57–61,

150–155

INDEX 247

legal/criminal justice systems 192–193; and social construction of gender 37, 49–51, see also prisons, women in

lesbianism/lesbians 7, 147, 167, 201 Leslie, Sarah-Jane 39 Levin, Amy 197 Lewis, John 114 , 115 LGBTQ 16, 19, 25, 181–182, 206, 214,

215, 236 Lincoln, Anne E. 78 literature, women’s 17 Little Miss Sunshine 44 Lockwood, Penelope 70 Lorber, Judith 33, 71 Lord of the Rings 43, 44 Lorde, Audre 92, 95, 181–182, 202,

237

McClintock, Mary Ann: “White Privilege” 11

McCormick, Katharine Dexter 173 Mcintosh, Peggy 95–97, 99–100 McRobbie, Angela 209 Mama’s Bail Out Day 215 man-hating 6–7 mansplaining 113–114, 236 marriage 9, 10, 10 , 12, 152–153; and

name-changing 69–70, 203; and privilege/oppression 102, 104–105, 106–107; promotion programs 111–112; same-sex xv, 105, 120–121, see also domestic violence

Martin, Courtney: “Girls Tweeting (Not Twerking) Their Way to Power” 201–202

Martin, Trayvon 97 Martinez, Amanda: Women’s Studies in

Communication 176 Martinez, Elizabeth: “La Chicana”

146–147 masculinity 7, 19, 38, 51, 51 , 52–53,

54, 81, 104, 163–165, 221, 237; and academic fields 80; and bodies/ clothing 71, 73, 163; and class/ race 153–154, 163, 164–165; four dictates of 153–154; and labor market

158–159; negatives outcomes of 56; and privilege/oppression 92; ranking of 164; reimagining 55–57; violent 123, 164; writing prompts on 82, see also gender ranking

maternity care see childbirth maternity leave 156–157, 213 Matsuda, Mari 91, 103 Maxim 5, 6, 7, 203 Mayer, Marissa 156, 158 media x, 60, 73, 203, 207–208, 216–218;

advertisements 76, 82, 207; feminine beauty ideal in 165–168; and gender socialization 37; objectification of women in 16; and rape culture 123; stereotypes/misconceptions of feminism in 5; and symbolic annihilation 165, 239

medical industry 168–169 medical professions 63, 77–78 Men Can Stop Rape 221, 222 menstrual activism 16, 226 metacognition 103 Meyer, Jan ix–x, 239 middle class 125, 126, 153, 157, 161,

177; women/feminism 7–8, 13, 54, 147–148, 167, 211

military 13, 16 Milkman, Katherine 68–69 Miller, Claire Cain 159 Million Dollar Baby 44, 44 Mills, C. Wright 31–32; Sociological

Imagination 32, 238–239 Miss Representation 217–218 Mock, Janet 203 MomsRising 213–214 Montoya, Bobby 36 Moraga, Cherie 147 moral development 58 Mormon church 42 Mother Nurture program 214–215 mother/motherhood 18, 58, 65, see also

breastfeeding Mott, Lucretia 11 Movement for Black Lives xv, 215 Ms. Magazine 8, 29, 118

248 INDEX

Mukherjee, Sy 142–143 Murphy, Dave 100 mythical norm 92, 119, 121, 150, 210,

237

Nameberry 67 names, gendered 66–70 Nation 174 National Center for Education Statistics

212 National Organization for Women

(NOW) 14, 198, 199 National Women’s Law Center 213 National Women’s Studies Association

19, 118, 197 Nature 60 Netflix 157–158 New York Times 48, 65–66, 129, 175, 207,

208 Newsweek (magazine) 5 Nguyen, Amanda 191 , 192–193, 195 9to5 98, 199, 212 Norris, Michele 172 Nortman, Kara 156 NOW (National Organization for

Women) 14, 198, 199

Obama, Barack 154, 175 Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) xv,

104–105 objectification of women 13, 16,

223, 237 occupational segregation of labor 61–66,

62 , 237; application exercise in 79; and gender wage gap 64, 64 ; horizontal/ vertical 63; and leadership positions 65, 77; and performance expectations 65–66; and traditional gender norms 63–64

O’Donnel, Sheila 208 Oedipus complex 58 office/clerical work 61, 62 , 63, 75–77 Oh, Soo 47 Old School 82 online dating 184 oppression ix, 4, 91–93, 237, see also

privilege/oppression

opting out 207–208, 237 Oscars 21, 22, 43–45, 44 , 46 , 218

Palin, Sarah 54 parents/parenting 29–31; and gender

reveal parties 80–81; and naming of children 66–67, see also fatherhood; motherhood

part-time work 155–156 “Party with Consent/Sluts” 200 Passengers 80 patriarchy 7, 69–70, 102, 168–169, 237 Paycheck Fairness Act (proposed) 212 Peck, Emily 158 Penaluna, Regan: A Chronicle of Higher

Education 20 Persky, Aaron 123 personal is political 8, 10, 70, 237 Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, 1996) 107, 110–112

Pesut, Hana 71, 73 P ew Research Center 9, 10 , 50, 106 PFLAG: “Guide to Being a Straight

Ally” 206 pharmaceutical profession 78 Pharr, Suzanne: “Homophobia as a

Weapon of Sexism” 7 Phillips, Lynn 121, 238 The Pill 172 the pill see contraception Pincus, Gregory 173 Pineapple Express 82 Planned Parenthood 198, 199 Platoon 43, 44 police 49, 50, 193, 203, 219; racism of 97,

116, 210–211 politics/politicians 25, 154, 212, 234; and

social construction of gender 47–49, 47 , 48 , 53, 54, see also 2016 presidential election

popular culture 3, 21–23, 37, 203, 216; and privilege/oppression 102; and social construction of gender 42–45, 44 , 46 , see also Hollywood movies

pornography 17 postfeminism 209, 225, 237

INDEX 249

poverty 15, 110–111, 112, 125–126, 151–152

power relations 4–5, 25, 91 Pratt, Chris 80 praxis, feminist ix, 191–228, 237; and

activism 195, 197–205, 216–225; application exercises on 225–226; and bodies 218–223; and community 196–197; and critical thinking 195–196; and empowerment/ leadership 196; evaluating prior knowledge on 225; framing definitions/related concepts in 194–205; and intersectionality xiv, 153; and language/images/symbols 215–218; misconceptions about 211–213, 224–225; resistance to 206–211; skills assessments on 226–227; and social transformation/ action research 197; Spark Movement case study 223–224; as threshold concept ix, 4, 194; and work/family 213–215; writing prompts on 227–228

Precious 44 Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978) 14 prejudice 93–94 Pride at Work 214 prisons, women in 49–50, 213, 215 privilege/oppression 6, 7–8, 89–134,

193; application exercise on 131–132; and bodies 121–125; class mobility case study 125–131, 127 , 128 ; defensiveness over/denial of 99–101; definitions in 91–99, 237; discussion questions on 134; evaluating prior knowledge on 131; feminist stance on 90; gender as 31; in health care 103–104; and ideologies 92, 94, 102–103; and institutions 39, 90, 101–102; and internalized oppression/ horizontal hostility 52, 94–95, 235; and intersectionality 150, 151, 152, 158, 169, 181–182; and language/ images/symbols 113–121, 162–163; and marked/unmarked language 119–121, 120 , 236; and maternity care/childbirth 169, 170–171;

misconceptions with 93–94; and mythical norm 92; skills assessment on 132–134; as threshold concept ix, 4, 31, 90–91; and Wikipedia 116–119; and work/family 104–113; writing prompts on 134

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 68

professional women 65, 156, 157–158 Project on Global Working Families: The

Work, Family and Equity Index 108 property rights 12 PRWORA see Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

psychology/psychoanalysis 57–59, 223 public health 18, 63, 141, 142, 143, 172,

198 Putin, Vladimir 154

Quinn, Zoe 117

race/racism x, 4, 5, 8, 15–16, 54, 119, 237–238; and athletics 164–165; and bigotry/prejudice 93–94; in criminal justice system 50; and education 130; and feminine beauty ideal 165–168; and gender 31; and implicit bias 205; and intersectionality 142, 143, 144, 146–147, 148, 151, 153–154, 159; and masculinity 152–153; and online dating 184; and the pill 173–174; in pop culture 22; and 2016 presidential election 176–177, 176 , 179; in workplace 14, 78

Radeloff, Cheryl: Transforming Scholarship 2, 194, 195–196, 197

Ramsey, Franchesca 180 rape/sexual assault 14, 15, 192–193,

205; and activism 218–223, 222 ; “corrective” 201; and victim-blaming 123, 125, 219

rape culture 16, 121–125, 134, 225, 238 rape jokes 124 Rape Shield Laws 14, 238 Reich, Robert 157–158 Reign, April 22, 218

250 INDEX

religion/spirituality x, 12, 16; and gender socialization 37, 81; and social construction of gender 41–42

reproductive rights/justice 13, 14, 203, 207, see also contraception; sex education

respectability politics 94–95 restrooms 13, 36, 97–98, 209–210 reverse discrimination 211–213 Richard Delgado: Critical Race Theory 19 Richards, Amy: Manifesta 17 Richardson, Sarah 60 Rise 192–193 Rock, John 173 Rodger, Elliot 117 Roe v. Wade (1973) 14, 238 Rohan, Liz 76 Roizen, Heidi 68 Ronen, Anat 1 Room 44 Roos, Patricia A. 159 Rosie the Riveter 1 , 2 Roth, Louise 171 The Royal Tenenbaums 82 Russo test 21–22, 23 Russo, Vito: The Celluloid Closet 21–22

Sadker, David 38 Sakala, Carol 169, 170 Salon 70 Saluja, Kiran 143 same-sex marriage xv, 105, 120–121 Sandberg, Sheryl 54–55, 65–66; Lean In

53, 67–68 Sandoval, Chela 148 Sanger, Margaret 172–173, 198 Sarkeesian, Anita 21, 117, 207 Scheuble, Laurie 69 Schindler’s List 43, 44 Schlafly, Phyllis 12 Schmitz, Susanne 63 Schneider, Rob 114 , 115 school shootings 82 Science (journal) 38–39 secretarial/clerical work 61, 62 , 63,

75–77

Seely, Megan: Fight Like a Girl 197, 203, 228

Selma (film) 22 Senn, Charlene Y. 74 Serano, Julia 36 Seventeen Magazine 224 sex 238; and gender 32–36, 60–61 sex education 199 sex reassignment 35 sex work/trafficking 16–17 sex/gender system 33, 238 sexism 4, 7, 31, 37–38, 91, 211, 238;

enlightened/retro 207; in politics 47; in pop culture 21–22

sexist language 119–121 sexual assault see rape Sexual Assault Survivors’ Rights Act

(2016) 192–193, 195 sexual harassment 15–16 Shaheen, Jeanne 192 Sherman, Richard 164–165 Shrewsbury, Carolyn 196 The Silence of the Lambs 43, 44 Sinonson, Jocelyn 215 slacktivism 201, 238 Slate 60 slut-shaming/-bashing 52, 74–75, 94,

203, 238 SlutWalks 219–220, 238 Smith, Barbara 148 social construction of gender 29–82;

application exercises for 79–80; discussion questions on 81; and education 37–39; and electoral politics 47–49, 47 , 48 ; evaluating prior knowledge of 78–79; and family/workplace 39–41, 40 ; and gender norms/policing 51–52; and gender ranking 52–55; and gender socialization 36–37; and learning roadblocks 57–61; and legal system 49–51; and popular culture 42–45; and religion 41–42; and segregation of labor see occupational segregation of labor; and sex/gender 32–36; skills assessment for 80–81; and social cues

INDEX 251

31; and sport 45–46; as threshold concept ix, 4, 31; workplace case studies 75–78; writing prompts on 81–82

social constructionism 31–32, 33, 51, 60–61, 238; anchoring topics through 61–75; and bodies 70–75, 72 , 73 ; and gender wage gap/segregation of labor 61–66, 62 ; and gendered names/titles 66–70; and masculine identities 82

social justice 142, 143, 147, 194, 225, 227

social media 5, 117, 184, 200–201; and breastfeeding 141; and gender identity 35–36, see also Facebook; Twitter

Social Science Research Network 68–69 Sociological Images (blog) 121 Spark Movement 223–224 Spelman, Elizabeth 149 sport 45–46, 89 , 90, 116, 133, 133 ,

164–165, 182–183, 183 , 212–213 Stanton, Elizabeth Cady 11–12;

“Declaration of Sentiments” 12 Stefancic, Jean: Critical Race Theory 19 Steinem, Gloria 120 Stevens, Lindsay M. 159 Stolakis, Kritsine: Where We Stand 42 Straight Outta Compton 218 Strasser, Annie-Rose 123 street harassment 180, 218–223 Stryker, Susan 33; Transgender History

35, 119 suffrage movement 12, 13, 23, 239 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program 25 Swarns, Rachel 105 Swingers 82 Switzer, Kathrine 89 , 90, 131–132 symbolic annihilation 165, 239

Take Back the Night 14, 219, 220, 239 the Taliban 2 Tanenbaum, Leora: Slut! 52 tattooing 73–75 Tatum, Beverly Daniel 93 television 5, 43, 45

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 25, 110–111

Third National Conference of Commissions on the Status of Women (1966) 198

Thomas, Justice Clarence 15 Thorn, Chantal 74 threshold concepts xi, xiii, xiv–xv, 4, 145,

194; definitions in ix–x, xi, 3, 239; interconnectedness of xiv

Time (magazine) 5, 6, 81 Title IX 14–15, 46, 90, 197, 212, 239 tomboys 53 tone policing 115 Tosh, Daniel 124 Tough Guise 2: Violence, Manhood, and

American Culture 82 Townsend, Taylor 182–183, 183 Traister, Rebecca 219–220 trans* xv, 19, 35, 239 transgender 35, 119, 239; and activism

19; and Girl Scouts 36; parents 183; and public restrooms 13, 36, 209–210; represented in pop culture 22

transnationalism 16–17, 19 transphobia 36, 209–210, 239 Tropic Thunder 82 Trump, Donald xv, 109, 115, 175–179 Truth, Sojourner 145–146 Tuchman, Gaye 165, 239 Turner, Brock 123 Twitter 114 , 115, 117, 184, 200, 201,

202–203, 217, 239 2016 presidential election 175–179, 176 ,

177 , 178 , 182

ugly stereotype 6 UN Women 217 Unforgiven 43, 44 universities 48–49, 98, 100, 220 U.S. Congress 47, 48 U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services: Office of Minority Health 103–104

U.S. Department of Labor 63 U.S. Supreme Court xv, 14, 15–16

252 INDEX

Valenti, Jessica 6, 124, 209; Full Frontal Feminism 9, 51, 203; “How to End” 129–130

Vallas, Rebecca 151 Van Wilder 82 veterinary profession 77–78 victim-blaming 123, 125, 219 video games 117 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA,

1994) 14, 239 violence, gender-based 14, 16–17,

25–26n3, 57, 82, 122, 209, 211; and intersectionality 152, 153, 183; organizations combating 192–193, 198–199, see also domestic violence; rape/sexual assault; rape culture

Von D, Kat 75 voting rights see suffrage movement

Wade, Lisa 52, 56, 181 wage inequality see gender wage gap Walk a Mile in Her Shoes 220–221 Walker, Rebecca: “Becoming the Third

Wave” 16 Warner, Judith 208 Washington Post 154 Way, Niobe 56 Weber, Lynn 102–103 Weiss, Sasha 202 Wellman, David 93–94 Wendell, Susan 152 West, Lindy 124 WGS (Women’s and Gender Studies)

ix–xv, 2, 17–21, 29, 146, 224–225; and community 196–197; and critical thinking 195–196; and empowerment/leadership 196; history of 5, 17–19; signature pedagogies of xiii; and social transformation/action research 197; threshold concepts in see threshold concepts; and ways of seeing/ thinking/knowing x–xi, 2–4

white privilege 95–97, 98–99 White Ribbon Campaign 220

whitesplaining 114–116 Wikipedia 116–119, 134 Williams, Joan 65 Williams, Kristi 112 Willis, Ellen 21 Wise, Tim 98–100 Wolf, Naomi 168 women of color 8, 13, 54, 146–147,

212, 220; and childbirth 171–172; and contraception 172–174; and education/scholarship 19; and feminine beauty ideal 165–168; violence against 198–199, 203; and wage inequality 14

Women’s and Gender Studies see WGS

women’s liberation movement 10, 13–15, 17, 29, 119, 146, 147, 194, 206–207, 218, 239

Women’s March on Washington (2017) 8, 24

Women’s Sports Foundation 212–213 women’s studies 17–19, see also WGS Women’s Veterinary Leadership

Initiative 77 work–life balance 108, 155–157, 158, 214,

239 work/workplace x, 9–10, 14, 16, 61–66,

68, 207; and diversity-valuing behaviors 210; and feminist praxis 213–214; feminization case studies 75–78; and horizontal segregation of labor 63, 155, 158–159, 235; and intersectionality 155–162; job interviews 54–55; and paid leave 39, 108–109, 109 , 112, 155, 156–158, 213; and privilege/oppression 104, 105–113; and social construction of gender 39–41, 40 , 53, 54; and women in the labor market 105–106, see also occupational segregation of labor

working from home 156–157 Working Mother magazine 157 working-class women 8, 13,

166–167

INDEX 253

World Health Organization (WHO) 170, 183

Wright, Martha 11

XO Jane 204

Yahoo 116, 156–157, 158 Yamato, Gloria 91 Yousafzai, Malala 1 , 2

Zambrana, Ruth Enid 154–155 Zeilinger, Julie 100, 201; A Little F’d Up

9, 203–204 Zero Dark Thirty 44 Zettel, Jen 38 Zimmerman, George 97 Zittleman, Karen R. 38 Zurn, Rhonda 118 Zwick, Rebecca 128