Go Terps and Wenty disagree over whether one can broadly say that gender inequality is subsiding over time. G.T. argues that we’re “constantly improving” and Wenty begs to differ. In a sense, I think there might be some truth to both of these perspectives. In some ways, improvements have been made, and in others, we are still a sharply divided society. Whether society is improving would seem to be debatable, but in a sense, it doesn’t really matter. Shouldn’t we be more concerned with whether gender inequality exists today, and if it does, what we intend to do about it? . .
I recently watched the documentary, “The Life and Times of Rosie the Riveter,” which gives one a sense of the experience of American women during World War II. With men rushing into battle in the Pacific and European theaters, a labor scarcity developed on the home front, and women were encouraged to enter the labor market. Men may have been risking their lives in war, but women were expected to make a different kind of sacrifice for the nation. They demonstrated their patriotism by entering the workforce in order to maintain production in a wartime economy. Staying home was not an easy option for many women, for they risked being accused of not supporting their country and being branded traders. On the one hand, there were clear improvements in terms of women’s labor force participation, but on the other, the process by which women were encouraged to go into the workforce was a manipulative one. Women were first compelled to demonstrate their nationalism by entering workforce. Then, once the men were back from the war, these same women were expected to prove their patriotism again by abandoning their jobs and returning to the home. If G.T. and Wenty were to discuss this historical moment, G.T. would likely emphasize women’s growing workforce participation as proof of an improving society, while Wenty would likely insist we can not overlook women’s forced exodus. What is clear is only that anticdotes can be selectively mined from history and pulled out of their larger context in order to make any point one wants to make about the advancement or retreat of gender equality. Therefore, I would like to take a different approach. Irrespective of what happened in this nation’s past and whether a clear trend of improvement can be established, I would like to move the debate forward with a modest proposal: if gender inequality exists today, then it behooves us to work toward ending it. In short, I think it does exist, and I think we should knock it off. For starters, women today are still victims of employment-based discrimination, a clear sign that even if our society is improving, we have a long way to go. By and large, women still do not earn as much as equally educated men. In the recent Time article, “Why Do Women Still Earn Less Than Men,” Laura Fitzpatrick reminds us that in 2008 women in the U.S. still earned only 77 cents on the male dollar. When the topic of job discrimination is discussed in the media, it is often framed in terms of race, but gender is an important part of the story even if journalists fail to notice. For example, it is not just Blacks, but Black women especially, who are concentrated in the least paid and lowest status jobs. Another measurable form of gender inequality is that women continue to be the victims of sexual violence. Each year a large number of women are raped and sexually assaulted. In Carolyn Sprague’s recently published article “Sexual Harassment,” she states what by now should be obvious: “The majority of victims reporting instances of sexual harassment are women, and the vast majority of reported aggressors are men.” Today–this very minute–one can observe that men regularly feel entitled to interrupt and talk over women. Today, men still feel more entitled to grope women in public. Job discrimination, sexual harassment, groping, interrupting–all of these observations demonstrate that “our” society is still characterized by gender inequality, and there is still work that needs to be done. Go Terps seems to argue that we should simply have faith that life will constantly improve for women, but why would anyone instill so much blind trust in a society with such a bad track record? By now, women have been treated unequally for centuries. If society really has been constantly improving, it is has only been through the direct actions of people. As I look out my window today–right now–I see no compelling evidence for why we should stop fighting for change. ~ Summer Lover
2 Comments
There has been a recent debate in this blog about whether parents should strictly adhere to gender norms by raising masculine men and feminine women. I agree with Lady Lazarus that raising your children to be gender aschematic would in fact be beneficial. I agree with the argument that this would be the most ideal environment for a child and would provide a child with the best mindset. Drizzle’s post clearly disagrees with this sentiment. Instead, Drizzle argues that while this gender aschematic way of living may be possible in one’s home, gender aschematic values and habits might steadily erode as the child grows older and matures. In other words, it’s just not realistic, because once the child goes out into the real world he or she will experience gender categorization from many other institutions of society (e.g., school). It’s not going to work, so why try. As Lady Lazarus has done (here), one can easily argue against Drizzle with the following logic: the attempt to raise a gender aschematic child—even if we can’t ultimately deter the child from acting in gendered ways—is a worthwhile endeavor. Children who have been exposed to gender aschematic ideas might be better equipped to become independent thinkers. They would be less inclined to simply accept the usual gendered explanations about how the world is supposed to work, and they will grow up having experienced what a world might look like if all people were equal and not stratified by gender. After all, isn’t this what the United States has been aiming toward for centuries?! Those who would side with Drizzle would like us to acknowledge that Sandra Bem’s gender schema theory is a description of a utopia—which is “of course” a problem because our world is an imperfect one. Utopian ideas don’t work in imperfect societies, so again, why even try? This bit about our imperfection garners no disagreement from me. Take, for example how people today look toward ads and commercials for clues about how to reach their ideal gendered look. It is as if we are parrots and institutions like the media and the state are our owners. We are a docile lot and easily manipulated. We watch and observe others’ behaviors, and pick and choose which to imitate depending on some advertiser’s notion of perfection. We’re also imperfect because we’re power hungry. That is, when we’re not being manipulated, we’re attempting to manipulate others. It seems that we look for every instance to be superior, and do so by ridiculing even the smallest behaviors. For example, many times it comes down to how well someone performs their gender. Gendered norms are such a large part of our society and have been in practice for so long. They are are useful for keeping people in line, and they are reinforced by media representations. Surely, gender schema theory is bound to fail. In fact, trying to make it succeed would only be a waste of energy. Perhaps this is why some people feel so threatened by the prospect of raising their children in a gender aschematic environment. Perhaps they’re just convinced they will fail.
But say we make some headway and are able to reimagine what it means to be a woman and what it means to be a man. Say a sizable number of parents adopt this idea of raising their children without the usual gender stereotypes. I suspect Drizzle would still remind us that we are just so imperfect and so power hungry as a society that even if gender ceased to be the means of determining superiority, another trait would likely fill its absence. I imagine Drizzle would shake his/her finger, saying “One cold reality of this world is that people are fond of status hierarchies. Nothing will change that. If not gender, we’ll find another category with which to make ourselves miserably stratified.” If we adopt Drizzle’s apprehension and if we fail to try simply because we are convinced we are bound to fail, then our fate is sealed. We will almost certainly condemn ourselves to perpetual inequality. But at what point do people stop justifying the status quo because alternatives seem too remote to even contemplate? Even if it is true that we can never escape creating status hierarchies—and I don’t believe this is true—isn’t a better society one that tries to address injustice? In the end, even if we are only able to create a single day free of prejudice and discrimination, isn’t that far better than refusing to try? ~ Country Girl In a recent blog entry titled, “Why Gender Typing is Positive,” Drizzle states that raising children to be gender aschematic is “unrealistic” because “there are too many other outlets that expose children to gender categorization.” Drizzle also states that the proposed benefits of raising your children to be gender aschematic are “only possibilities and not definite outcomes.” I do agree that once children leave the confines of the home they will be subjected to gender stereotypes, but to assume they will blindly accept these rigid ideas about gender is too simplistic. I am not asserting that by raising one's child in an environment relatively free of gender typing, the child is guaranteed to become socially androgynous. I do however believe that raising children in a gender aschematic environment will make them more open-minded about the full range of opportunities available to them and will encourage independent thinking. Children will be more likely to question the way in which gender is structured in society and will be more capable of critiquing gender stereotypes. I would also argue that a child who has lived in an environment relatively free of gender typing will be cognizant of the fact that a rigid gender binary does not reflect an inevitable reality. They will be able to understand that gender is not inherent and thus can be constructed in a variety of ways. . Betsy Lucal Drizzle later counters my argument about the beneficial aspects of raising children to be socially androgynous by asserting that children “who become socially androgynous will still face social issues with their peers which makes this style of living difficult.” Drizzle uses the example of Betsy Lucal and draws from her article “What it Means to be a Gendered Me” to support this claim. But Drizzle only applies a superficial reading of Lucal’s experiences. Betsy Lucal is a woman who has chosen not to "do" gender and as a result of her transgression of gender boundaries, Lucal is often mistaken for a man. Yes, Lucal did face adversity, but it is important to note that Lucal made this decision. At one point in the text, Lucal decided to grow her hair out and as a result was no longer mistaken for a man. To reduce Lucal's experiences of gender bending as experiences of victimization fails to acknowledge the activism she is trying to promote. Lucal seems to feel liberated by her experience because she feels she is helping to deconstruct a rigid and harmful gender binary. While I appreciate Drizzle's arguments and concerns about Bem's proposal, I still believe it is a beneficial and achievable goal to raise one's children to be gender aschematic. I think it is a mistake for Drizzle to dismiss this argument on the grounds that these ideas are only possibilities and not definite outcomes. It is never guaranteed that individual efforts to create equality will result in immediate success, but rather, success may need to be measured in intervals. In order to restructure the rigid binary gender system, we must understand gender as a historical construct which can be changed and is subject to improvement. In order to make positive change, individuals must actively resist adhering to gender stereotypes, and we must raise our children to do the same. ~ Lady Lazarus In an earlier post, Go Terps argues it is worth acknowledging the progress society has made in regards to racial and gender equality. G.T. makes the claim that society is constantly improving and that, “There will always be problems that individuals will find in the structure of society, but it will get better in time.” Although I agree with some of the arguments, I disagree with the claim that “our society has been flexible.” G.T.’s argument highlights evidence of extensive social progress in regards to gender and race yet the article fails to mention the massive struggle required to create that change. Did these changes happen overnight with little resistance? I argue that society has been inflexible and has been considerably unyielding to change. I will show the extent to which certain movements have been directly responsible for initiating change. Furthermore, I will provide evidence of situations that indicate how little we have progressed, and how much further we have to go to reach social equality. . Malcolm X, 1925 – 1965 Although we now have a black president, consider the road it took to get here and the racial inequality still seen in contemporary society. The issue of racial segregation provides one example. Legally sanctioned racial segregation was in force for 89 years after the abolition of slavery. Should we applaud ourselves because segregation was eventually abolished, blacks were eventually given the right to vote, and we eventually elected a black president after 43 white presidents? I do not want to understate the significance of these positive outcomes, but the fact that it took so long and the fact that it was such a hard fought battle suggests a serious problem. The murders of Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and Medgar Evers (among hundreds of others) were not a result of a flexible society that encourages change. Total racial equality has not been achieved. According to data from the U.S census, on average, white salaries are $15,000 higher per year then black salaries. The lifetime chances of a white man or woman going to prison are 2.5%, while the chances of a black person going to prison are 16.2%. These statistics are alarming and provide evidence that society still has a great deal of progress to make before achieving racial equality. Harvey Bernard Milk, 1930 – 1978 In terms of LGBTQ equality, Go Terps brings attention to certain advances, such as the legalization of gay marriage, gay pride days in elementary schools and other examples. The reality is that G.T.’s examples represent relatively superficial changes, and the LGBTQ community still faces massive hardship in society. The fact that only five states have legalized same sex marriage is clear evidence that our “constantly improving society” has not yet turned the corner. The gay rights movement has met fierce resistance from the religious right and our government. In Randy Shilt’s book, The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, he describes the story of the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California. Milk ran for political office three times before eventually being elected as city supervisor in 1977. Milk fought tooth and nail for gay rights and specifically opposed a political group that sought to make it illegal to be an openly gay educator in California. As depicted in the 2008 biographic film, Milk was eventually assassinated for his beliefs. This example illustrates the backlash that can result during the pursuit of social change. In order to appreciate the progress that has been made for social equality, we must recognize the battles that have been fought and the sacrifices that have been made. Our society has been extremely intolerant to change, but that should not dissuade us from fighting and campaigning for equality. What Go Terps fails to understand is that it is not a given that society will constantly improve. We should refrain from patting ourselves on the back for the social progress we have achieved because it can lead to complacency and our job is not finished. We must recognize and resist the injustices still faced by many groups and realize that more work is required to provide social equality for everyone.. ~ FLP How would you feel if you were called a slut? No one would be happy if they were called a slut, especially if a man is the one who delivers the insult to a woman. No girl wants a bad reputation. In an article based on her book, Slut! Growing Up Female with a Bad Reputation,” Leora Tanenbaum talks about a double standard women face every day. The article points out that before the age of 18 over half of all girls in the United States have had sex, while according to a New York Times poll, 53% of girls said sex before marriage is “always wrong.” Nearly three quarters of boys engage in sex at least once before the age of 18, but only 41% of guys think sex before marriage is “always wrong.” In high school most girls engage in sex to fit in, but once they have sex their peers bash them. A lot of girls are judged harshly based on their promiscuity. When I was in high school I only knew of a few girls who had sex. Most of my classmates wanted to wait until marriage. The few girls who did have sex were called rollers and sluts. Many guys saw these girls as easy, but this is of course a double standard. In high school boys often face pressure when it comes to having sex as well. In contrast to the experiences of many women, if a guy is a virgin when he is 18, people may think he is gay or inept. Guys often boast about having many sex partners so they can be seen as cool. But if guys can sleep around, why can’t girls? In her article, Tanenbaum recounts how one high school dealt with a huge controversy regarding sex among its teen students. At this particular school, many girls were found giving boys oral sex in parties and public parks. Reports about this in the media depicted the girls as promiscuous. The school responded immediately by calling the girls’ parents. Many girls were “reeducated” about teen sex because of this scandal, but what about the boys? The boys at this school did not receive any media attention, they did not receive any punishment by the school, their parents were not called, and they were not “reeducated.” Why did the girls face trouble while the boys received pats on the head? Adults called the girls sluts, and the boys were told that they were just acting like boys. If you think about it, things have been this way for a long time in the United States. I recently saw the documentary, Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes. In it, women were walking around in bikinis, but as they walked they were faced with men grabbing them as if they were merely objects. . In a lot of hip hop music videos, along with cars, jewelry and money, women are seen as material objects that men simply acquire in order to feel successful. One day when society becomes less male dominated, maybe women will receive the respect they deserve. ~ Chellebell |
AuthorsThe Class Blog Project, or CBP, is a blog featuring undergraduate students forming a critical dialogue with each other around ideas related to the sociology of gender. Archives
May 2010
Categories
All
|