Gender Journal

[mizzousociologyofgender]

Visions for the Future

Nearing the end of the semester, I want to tak a bit about feminism in particular. We read R.W. Connell's article concerning men as the "gatekeepers" to gender equality. Connell inform us that most equality legislation is put on the floor by women, but men (in our patriarchal system) control most of the resources. So what's the solution? Get men involved in the movement towards gender equality. 

Connell's ethnographic study titled, "Change Among the Gatekeepers: Men, Masculinities, and Gender Equality in the Global Arena", looks at UN forums concerning equality. Connell points out several reasons why men want to be in on gender equality: men see that inequality promotes unhealthy lifestyles, men are not isolated, men see too are equality benefits communities, and how gender equality stems from political or ethical beliefs. 

My concern is more about the US Congress. We're given a sliver of hope when we read Connell's article and are challenged to consider proposing change in inequality and incorporating men into the battle. I understand Connell is addressing the global framework and is examining how the debates are occurring within the UN. How is the climate looking for the US Congress though? 

Consider how our female representatives are criticized in the media:

I'm not stating my political party affiliation in this blog, unless there ever happens to be a Feminist Party, but that is sort of beside this point. 

I understand that there are possibilities that include men in gender equality, especially on the global level. It make sense, it's not an "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" concept, but it's close. Men have the power, we've been trying to change that, but it's proving to be a good ol' boys club to a n-th. What I like about Connell's article is that it does show how feminism is political and has practical application for communities. It's not just the feeling that women are objectified and marginalized by a male dominated society, it's working towards changing that constantly perpetuated state of inequality. I can get on board with that. 

This class has blown my mind a little bit. I halfway expected Sociology of Gender to be a constant discussion between feminists and...well...anti-feminists isn't quite the word...but it'll do for now. But it wasn't. We actually had critical discussion about topics and theories, and we didn't get into arguments. It was mostly an educated and respectful discussion based on articles or books we had just read.

It has been more than a breath of fresh air, and it has absolutely changed my paradigm a bit. Before this I may have been a bit too tunnel-visioned on daily, individual gender subversion. I have not dropped those views, but my worldview has been broadened to include some healthy drive to participate in postmodern feminist debate. This should be a global solution, it is sad that women's biggest critics are other women. Our female politicians are judged not by their ability to represent our population, but on their body, family life, and personal interactions. While it often seems like doom and gloom when considering what is being portrayed in news media, the music industry, the gender wage gap, etc. There is a hopeful ring about it all that drives me (and hopefully others) to continue searching for and acting towards realistic solutions. 

[mizzousociologyofgender]

Our Bodies Our Crimes

We read and discussed Jeanne Flavin's "Our Bodies, Our Crimes" in class. Flavin examines how the criminal justice system polices women's reproductive rights and continually reinforces patriarchal gender norms. 

Flavin discusses the problematic nature of reducing women's value down to the ability to reproduce. She goes on to discuss sterilization and how these issues disproportionately affect working class, poor, minority women. 

My favorite part of this book is that Flavin makes it a point to show how the issues of reproductive rights makes intersectionality necessary. Many other sociologists value and highlight intersectionality in their work. Particularly three authors stand out: Julie Bettie, Ann Arnett Ferguson, and CJ Pascoe.

Julie Bettie is the author of "Women Without Class". She examines how race and class play a part in the construction of gender in high school girls. She categorizes her subjects into groups based on class and race and highlights the auxiliary characteristics of the groups. These characteristics are self reported AND described by others. 

Ann Arnett Ferguson wrote "Bad Boys: Public Schools and the Making of Black Masculinity". Ferguson makes a point to show the intersectionality of the construction of identities in young boys who attend public school. 

And finally CJ Pascoe, my new sociological hero, who wrote "Dude, You're a Fag". This work uses qualitative participant observation to analyze the construction of masculinity in high school. Pascoe finds that the "fag discourse" is not necessarily homophobic (not decidedly homophobic) as much as it is a challenge of one's masculinity. She highlights how this issues creates and reinforces hegemonic masculinity and creates a sexually aggressive atmosphere in the school. 

Intersectionality is so important in sociology. I don't know how better to push for intersectional views. Being honest about limitations in research, highlighting the ways in which your work is or is not generalizable, and considering how issues like gender, race, and class play into social phenomena can only make a work better and more applicable. 

Here's a quick guide:

[mizzousociologyofgender]

Costumes vs. Drag

We discussed an article "The Pink Dragon is Female: Halloween Costumes and Gender Markers" by Adie Nelson. This immediately made me start thinking, 'How does this relate to performance in Butler's theory?'

Sure, I understand that Butler is often referenced for her theory concerning gender as repeated performance, but the density of her theory described in Gender Trouble is lost in most of these references. 

Nelson references previous research such as Mead (1934) concerning play as fostering creative imagination. Play is an integral part of childhood and has been studied and applied to its importance in adulthood. Nelson aplies play to Halloween costumes in that this ritual of dressing up or playing with identity is a notable part of childhood. Nelson also references another study where the findings reinforced the notion that "dress is one of the most significant markers of gender identity" (Barnes and Eicher, 1992). I think play is just as important to adult identity as it is for child identity, but it may come to fruition in a different way. 

The study coded the costumes being advertised for Halloween and categorized them into Heros, Villains, and Fools. Findings showed that men's costumes were broadly defined and women's identity in costume is narrowly defined. Most fool costumes were women's costumes. Overall the findings suggest that costumes and marketing reinforce traditional dichotomous notions of feminine as passive, masculine as aggressive, that marketing suppresses children's imagination, and that this aspect of play is non-inclusive and problematic in terms of gender.

What is fun about playing with these very gendered ideas of costume and performance? ? ? DRAG! Drag is essentially playing around with the essential notion of gender itself in a subversive nature! It's so fun and awesome and happy and queer. 

Butler writes, “In imitating gender drag implicitly reveals the imitative structure of gender itself - as well as its contingency” (1999). Butler is not saying that drag is imitating some original gender that exists and has notable characteristics. She is saying that this parody (the reveal of a failed 'original' to show it is a copy of some notion of gender), in its repetition, subverts and destabilizes the concept of gender as it is an imitation of an imitation. It is highlighting the idea that gender is fully socially constructed in every way. If drag did nothing to reveal the failure of an original gender it would only offer pastiche and reinforce the original and real and organic (Butler, 1999). It is in the repetition and revolution of a failed original that drag can be seen as real queer subversion of gender. 

And in this reveal we as an audience can play with the notion of gender as performance. In this play we find laughter and fun and critical analysis all at the same amazing time!

I see a lot of adults around Halloween playing with different identities. Typically these are occupational identities, which are largely a way in which we identify ourselves (as fire fighters, doctors, painters, etc). But when it comes to dressing in drag for Halloween, I feel it typically only creates this pastiche. 

A normative gender display is often juxtaposed with the drag costume. The girl dressed as a mustachioed police officer with tiny micro shorts and a busty top or a guy in a dress, wig and makeup showing his body hair and chugging beers. This only offers pastiche. The juxtaposition of these performances reinforces the idea that hegemonic masculinity and femininity are organic and strictly defined. 

I'm not saying that children's costumes are aiming to destabilize the gender dichotomy, but if these costumes were more gender neutral, as Nelson suggests, it could serve to offer even deeper parody of gender in that children are seen as developing their gender identities more than adults. 

Examine aspects of costume and drag and see if you can being to see the parody, the performance, or the pastiche. Everybody's doing it these days!

[mizzousociologyofgender]

I bought Alpha Nail and it was AWESOME(-ish)!

If you haven't heard of Alpha Nail I hope you've buckled up because this product is a trip!

We discussed gender and sex in the context of sport recently, and amongst the presentation of various theories regarding the gendered nature of sports we came along this true GEM of a product: Alpha Nail.

Here's some theoretical background for you to view this post. It might help understand how alpha nail relates to soc theory. Connell (2003) has been developing a theoretical framework for multiple masculinities for a while now, and this framework is highly applicable to many social situations. The concept of hegemonic masculinity incorporates aspects such as dominance over women, drive for financial success, and other characteristics that are pretty applicable to only White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males. This leaves out a fairly large group of men in the world and essentially puts these outsiders in a position to never be truly masculine (think different races, classes, and ...oh yeah...genders). 

After getting a solid grip on hegemonic masculinity we move on to examine gender roles in sports, we briefly consider the standard of femininity which our society values. Think thin but not frail, not too terribly smart, sexy but not slutty, nice but not flirty (since being too nice constitutes flirting, obviously), the list goes on and on. The perpetuation of heterosexuality through sports involves positioning hegemonic masculinity as opposite of femininity as much as possible, this involves making athletic performances gendered (throwing like a girl) and gendering the activities themselves (think, Warriors vs. Lady Warriors).

We look at Messner's 2009 article which outlines ideas like coaches vs. team moms and how teams track individuals into these levels of involvement based on their gender. This exemplifies how gender is involved from technique to outsider involvement. When it comes to the claim that women playing sports is "masculine", we point to Adams and Bettis' 2003 article which explains how it is a safe space to participate in activities that may be seen as masculine, but this does not make the activity itself inherently masculine. 

So, from all this we've gathered some important ideas:

-Hegemonic Masculinity and Traditional Femininity

-Gendered Nature of Sports from Inside Out

-Sexuality and Sex Play a Large Part in Sports

How does this relate to Alpha Nail? Well, as we looked at in the last post, advertising and marketing is absolutely gendered. Right? Yes. So using athletes who participate in highly gendered sports in highly gendered advertising campaigns must be the best idea ever right?! If you put these two persuasive, gendered institutions together you could probably sell anything to anyone of any gender right? Well, Alpha Nail seems to have set out to do just that.

I bought it, experienced it, and here is my product review of Alpha Nail:

First, check out some of the ads from the Alpha Nail website

Because breaking an nail is usually absolutely mortifying!

Masculinity, sexuality, aggressiveness, oh my!

I bought a "starter kit" which came in discreet packaging.

The kit included an Alpha Nail pen in a color that I believe is called "midnight" or "gasoline", I can't remember which one I picked, but it was close to black on the website. It also included nail polish remover wipes that were called "clean slate" and were specifically "Alpha Nail removers". 

So after opening this secret package containing two round containers and a curiously phallic nail polish applicator, I did what Alpha Nail representative Henry Martinez (UFC fighter) told me to do via his video on the Alpha Nail website:

http://www.alphanail.com/

1.) I put on the Alpha Nail.

2.) I checked out how good my nails looked now. Then...

3.) I made my girlfriend do the rest for me. 

The product itself is relatively sub par. Compared to nail polishes put out by other companies this stuff does not cut the mustard. The applicator brush is wide and makes it difficult to accurately apply the product to your nails rather than the whole tips of your fingers. The polish takes longer than a minute to dry, which is FAR TOO LONG! After being used to using quick dry nail polish all my life, I found it difficult to keep Alpha Nail off of my Alpha couch and Alpha clothes since it stayed wet for like a day and a half (okay, maybe 15 minutes, but still). It didn't stay on long. 

The website boast that MMA fighters wear nail polish to strengthen their nails and prevent breaking. But this stuff doesn't stay on your nails long enough to do that at all. And I love that they advertise that breaking a nail is "not something to be embarrassed about" but then insist it is worn to decrease nail breakage. 

While I do see my girlfriend (now she is officially my fiance btw!) as absolutely sexy and beautiful, having her paint my nails was...um....awkward. We laughed a lot and overall it didn't feel like I was dominating her or anything that would suggest that using Alpha Nail bolsters characteristics that are required to conform to hegemonic masculinity. 

So, Alpha Nail...what to say? The marketing campaign adheres to typical stereotypes of male athletes and marginalizing femininity. The product is gendered in nature in that it is specifically sold to men. And it's overall a poor excuse to sell nail polish to dudes. If you're male, and want to wear nail polish, go buy OPI from a salon. If it's too hard to challenge your masculinity with such an act, pretend its for Mother's Day or your pretend girlfriend or something. Products that have been around longer will suit your needs better. 

[mizzousociologyofgender]

I sure wish my body looked like that Diet Coke ad!

We're talking about Beauty again. Remember Naomi Wolf's Beauty Myth?: "Beauty is real & universal; women should want to embody, while men should desire the women who embody that ideal of beauty."

How does this translate into the media?

Well, it's pretty fun to look at the gendered nature of product advertising. Sure, I've blogged about the gendered nature of products themselves, but let's take a peek into how they are marketed shall we?

Take soda products for instance. The idea that women should desire beauty and men should acquire beautiful women is perpetuated through these advertisements. 

Coca-Cola has come out with 2 diet drinks: Diet Coke and Coke Zero. Can you tell me which one is intended to attract female consumers and which one is for male consumers?

I'm conflicted. As a butch lesbian I want BOTH of these things. I want my body to be as dead sexy as that Diet Coke bottle, but I also want to buy Coke Zero to crack open a can full of...strippers? 

The word "Diet" involves the body, and the body is usually attributed to female attributes. The mind, education, and strength are exclusively male territory. Why all of a sudden are companies putting out diet drinks that avoid diet? "Diet" also is a limiting word. Women need to diet, but don't get too thin. She needs curves, like the bottle shown above, but not too much extra or it's too much. Words like "Zero" and "Ten" are very defined and extreme. They are absolute, you can't have too much "zero", there is no more or less "ten". Just like how men cannot be too strong, or too much of a leader, or too smart. 

Of course, the only time that it is okay to mix genders in this advertising scheme is when it's a joke. An ironic twist that sexualizes the male body and simultaneously shows a diet drink is funny and masculine because it makes light of the serious problem of objectifying and sexualizing all things that involve women or implicate feminine gender expression. 

 Think about it the next time you see a Coke ad. I'm sure it's in the forefront when we see these blatant gendered points, but how does it change? Maybe equality? Maybe change from consumers? Gender is all around us. 

[mizzousociologyofgender]

Some Reasons why I want to get married....

There are many different arguments for and against the legalization of fame sex marriage. For me, as a lesbian woman in a committed monogamous relationship, it is particularly interesting when I hear arguments that tell me why I would not want to get married. You've probably heard them before, they're usually brought up as jokes about how absolutely miserable marriage is. 

Well, I can see why someone would think that marriage is miserable. For instance, up until about 200 years ago, the concept of love was completely left out of marriage. Sure, we've seen those fairy tales where a girl is supposed to go through with an arranged marriage and she chooses to marrythe one she loves instead...

Think about it. Before love was involved marriage WAS pretty miserable. Marriages were arranged for political, economic, and personal (the parents relationships with others) reasons.

*not necessarily a picture of love and affection here*

Also, as we discussed in class, there are many gendered implications in marriage. Based on the article "Gender division in household labor among married couples" by Bianchi et. al. we see that the gap between household labor hours between a married couple has begun to converge, there is still a great difference between how much housework and man does vs. a woman in a marriage. These are long standing gender norms that are so ingrained in our society that we have a ton of examples of sexist jokes based on them.

Not to mention the sexist jokes surrounding the "inherent" differences between the sexes. Right, women belong in the kitchen and are delicate and dainty. While men have "needs", can't stop their "biological" sexual impulses, and must go do man things (homosocial bonding). Generally, I hear a lot of explanations of having to put up with a husband or wife. This doesn't tie in with the romanticized idea of a loving marriage. But for some reason it is used as a defense to say "Hey you Homo, see how gross it is to be with another annoying person? You don't want to get married! You want to LIVE dammit, Liiiiive!"

THIS IS NOT HELPING YOUR ARGUMENT...jus' sayin'

Finally, the idea that same-sex marriage threatens the institution of marriage...ugh...this has been argued over and over and it makes my ears bleed. I'm tired of hearing this argument. You know why? Because when this is used it is basically stating fact: SAME SEX MARRIAGE WILL  ABSOLUTELY THREATEN THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE! 

Wait, what?!?

Yes, yes. The gendered implications in marriage will be totally f*cked with and challenged. 

We went over another marriage article in class: "American Marriage in the Early Twenty-First Century" by Andrew Cherlin. In this discussion we approached the ways marriage has changed since love has been involved. For this entry, I want to point out that while marriage as an institution has changed to include more personal and individual rewards it still has the traditional definition as including a husband and a wife, a man and a woman, etc. So while Cherlin does point out that marriage has changed when it comes to its meaning, it has not changed when it comes to its gendered definition. This includes the roles that are attached to these genders. 

Some arguments of this suggest that children of same-sex couples are at risk (statistics from a 2008 California survey show grades and delinquency are not only unaffected, many times children in same-sex homes score higher and get in less trouble). Other arguments include greater substance abuse, infidelity, and separation in same sex couples (again, the same 2008 study shows that these are all bunk). 

So, changes happen in defining marriage, true. Opposition arguments are based on false premises, true. Marriage is a gendered institution, true. Same sex marriage threatens traditional institution of marriage, true. 

Changes in gender roles is much scarier than Ellen and Portia. 

*terror!*

Same sex marriage implies that a household can be complete when a woman in the head of household. Same sex marriage shows that the division of household labor can be equal. That usual the arguments discussed in the Bianchi et. al. article that different sexes have more time availability to do household labor, are biologically better at some chores, and that the highest earner can "but out" of household labor are shattered when same sex marriage is considered. I discussed this with my advisor and he pointed out that many studies show that same sex couples to not adhere to typical gender roles within households (although, most of these studies were concerning white men, but still). 

The tie to homosexuality usually goes right along with actual human sexuality. This argument suggests that who we have sex with and how we have sex can determine other life skills such as child rearing. Right, so my question then becomes what skills or practices in the bedroom coordinate with those outside the bedroom. If you're a screamer in bed will you be a good fan at your kid's sporting events? Does anal sex suggest you will be good at potty training? If you're into threesomes can you handle multiple kids? Quite frankly, I hear about freakier sex practices from heterosexual couples than ANY I've heard from my gay friends, and it turns out that everyone I know is a pretty good parent overall. Their kids go to school, play sports and participate in social activities.

Does this depend on the "tenderness of the mother" and the "direction and protection of the father"? Now those, THOSE are the gender roles that will be threatened, that are being threatened by same sex marriage. 

The idea that sex category determines if one will be dominant, submissive, loving, nurturing, providing, etc. Suggests that inequality is something that we are essentially born with. How? If our society values typically masculine attributes, and our gender determines if we can/will have these attributes, then the idea that women must be feminine and cannot be providing, protecting, strong heads of households means that they will be valued less than men (who can accomodate and achieve these things).

So this issue kinda boils down to Equality. Gender Equality. Not necessarily the changing of the institution of marriage. 

Change, especially correcting inequality, is difficult and uncomfortable. It means admitting that there is inequality (admitting that the statistics are true! ahem). 

The outcome would most definitely threaten the gendered nature of marriage. Equality and Gender Roles are the key words here, not Children and Sex. 

All this aside, I want to get married because I love my partner. All of these things I've mentioned above are certainly true in our relationship. We have cohabited before officially tying the knot. We divide the household labor fairly evenly. And we do not necessarily have a clear Head of Household. Our incomes are relatively equal. We are very traditional in our values and we raise our kid to make good grades and treat people with equal kindness. So yeah, we want to strive for equality in all areas of our life, and feel it is not only important for us to get married for equality, but ALSO because we are very much in love.

Now I'll get sappy. So either stop reading or get ready to hear about adorable lesbian homo-love. 

Me and my fiance (yeah, I put a ring on it!) met at a conference in Las Vegas full of thousands of roller derby affiliated folks. Many of these gender bend, and full on queer, or are taking a gender vacation to embrace their bi-sexual desires in a safe environment. So this wild, crazy, sex-fueled party was going on all around us and somehow we met and kind of hit it off. I called her a week later and she intimidated the hell out of me (she's a PhD student, teaches college courses, does work in Africa, manages the nutrition program at a Zoo, has lived all over the country, etc.)! After dating long-distance and talking on the phone for HOURS each night, I began to drive up to stay the weekend with her almost every weekend (it's a 6 hour drive, it was tough). 

We are now engaged to be married. It has not been easy for us. We have dealt with serious illness, graduate programs, raising a young daughter, coming out to our families, and not to mention dealing with all the opinions of pretty much any person who knew us. 

I love her. I love her with every drop of blood in my veins, every bone in my body and every ounce of energy I have. I can feel how much I love her. It's an actual physical feelings that if you've ever loved someone deeply you may have felt as well. She makes me smile. She can make me smile when I am so angry or sad that I can't think straight. Somehow her soul connects with mine and something happens. She is beautiful. Ravishing. Drop Dead Gorgeous. We have fun together, and we are an amazing family. Our child in in the gifted program, and she is a beautiful, androgynous kid who wants to have short, green hair and wear the prettiest dresses. We are happy. She makes me happy. She speaks my language. I've never felt so right and I've never thought about someone so much. I can't wait to marry this woman. I am lucky to have her. Our marriage will be happy, meaningful, and loving. And we will have fun getting married, we're excited to make it official and we will rejoice all our love and happiness when it happens. 

[mizzousociologyofgender]

Live Blog at Trans*101 for MU Pride Month

This presentation/ discussion/ Q&A is being held at the Mizzou LGBTQ Resource Center from 12pm-1pm TODAY! For this entry I will be doing a LIVE BLOG throughout the event. Free Food from Noodles & CO too!

Resource Center Website:

http://lgbtq.missouri.edu/

Trans* Website:

http://trans.missouri.edu/

Presentation by Struby Struble, coodinator of the LGBTQ Resource Center! She identifies herself: Woman, Gender-non-conforming.

Examples of some "Trans Folk" who are okay with us outing them because they have given consent. Many of them "pass", meaning they read as the gender they present rather than their sex category:

Leslie Feinberg(author Stone Butch Blues)

Sylvia Rivera (Early Activist, murdered) www.srlp.org "Toilet Training"

Lucas Silveira of The Clicks (musician)

S. Bear Bergman (Author "butch is a noun", very positive individual when speaking about trans* issues)

Kate Bornstein (Author "Gender Outlaw")

Rocco Katastrophe (DJ, Co-editor of OP 'zine)

Kylar Broadus (Keynote for Transweek prior, Assitant Professor for Lincoln University in Jeff City, MO)

Janet Mock (#girlslikeus, Activist for Transwomen of Color)

Now we are moving on to Objectives. Struby lets us know that we will be focusing a lot on correct language. She also highlights that there is a range of knowledge in the room from those who have helped build these programs to people who have never heard any of this information before. She also locates herself based on her prior knowledge, some have knowledge based on Jerry Springer and other sources of false information or misinformation. 

Gender: "Gender is something that effects us in the world."-Struby. Gender is seen, generally, as "universal" truths. We have an idea of why men are men and why women are women. We can't assume that our knowledge is shared by everyone else. Also, our race and class have an effect on our lived gender experience.

Definitions, Terms & Terminology: Gender Identity (what I think inside), Gender Expression ("what pants I'm wearing"), Orientation ("who's pants I'm trying to get into"). Pronouns are how we refer to other people based on how they want to be referred to. It's a respect thing, will you can me by what I want to be called by? "IT" is NEVER OKAY, trans folk are people, duh. "Queer" Reclaimed by the queer community, not okay when it is used in a derogatory manner. Queer is being used by the younger generation, it has come about as a good thing because it is fairly all inclusive and covers all the genders and identities that are not represented in the acronym LGBTQ. 

Transgender: Someone who is going to live their gender differently than is necessarily expected by their sex category assigned at birth. It is common to live as the opposite gender, these are our FTMs and MTFs. Another way to do that is to convolute the entire idea of gener and throw it out the window and live in between the binary gender definitions (Genderqueer). 

Queer: Breaches Identification and Orientation definitions. It can be how you identify and who you are attracted to.

Two Spirit: Throws in a historical aspect of the trans world. Historical, native, societies had a lot of transgender deities. Referring to in native American society as people who are genderqueer or have transitioned to another gender. However, it is culturally insensitive to use Two Spirit as a  gender identity if you are not Native American. 

Transgender and Intersex are not the Same! Intersex refers to more biological terminology than gender identification.

A Question has been raised as to where "Androgyny" fits into this gender/transgender concept. See Struby's drawing below: Trans is an umbrella that encompasses things like queer, androgynous, two-spirit, etc. This word is another way for someone to define themselves under this umbrella, but it is not okay to use without someone defining themselves because it has been used as a slur in the past. 

*Words NOT to USE!* Hermaphrodite: Outdated & Rude. Transvestite: A Sexual Fetish about what one like to do during "sexy bedroom time" (Struby). 

Sad But True: Transphobia/Homophobia. Different than a phobia where someone cringes and runs away. More like, you can get fired from you job based on your gender presentation. 

There are many ways to DO Trans* (Remember West & Zimmerman's "Doing Gender"? Think about how gender is done.) Name, pronoun, and appearance transition [most transfolk do this], hormone replacement therapy [only some transfolk do this], surgery [only some transfolk do this. it is costly and not necessarily perfected yet], legal name/ID changes [some transfolk do this]. Imagine the complications that could come about from having a different gender marker on your ID. What if you get arrested? What about students? Will someone question you if you try to go to the Rec Center and someone sees that your gender does not match your name? Think about it.

How to be an Ally: Basic Respect, gender identification (Believe it what they say it!), Use Pronouns, Ask if you're unsure, Don't police ANYONEs gender presentation (like if a guy is knitting/crying, or a girl wants to lift in the gym), and I can't talk any more about how policing gender in bathrooms is wrong wrong wrong. 

Climate: Not good, lots of stats about how transpeople feel unsafe at school (90%). 1 in 4 has survived physical violence. These stats are higher for racial minorities. The rate of suicide in this group is 20X higher than that of the general population. At Missou: 57.1% of transgender reported experiencing harassment on campus (this is the largest group reporting feeling harassment on campus in the whole survey). These might be compelling to those who need a reason to be an ally. Support systems make a difference in the ratio of suicidal thoughts to suicide attempts (12% vs. .05% [stats on how many of those who had thoughts that also had attempts]). 

Outlook on Campus: Kinda Great! Resource Center and other forms of support, Student Health and Counseling, Institutional Support, and progressive training for staff and faculty. 

InsideOut Radio Show is Pod-casted! WHAT?!?! Go find it! They're 1 hout long and Ultra-Informative.

So that's my first take on a live blog. This event was very informative. Visit the LRGTQ Resource Center Website to find more events this month. There are several more today and pretty much every day this month. Pride Month makes me so excited I can barely contain it! So Go GO! It'll be worth it and its pretty much free for everybody!

AND . . . THE END!

[mizzousociologyofgender]

I don't usually repost, but this is important.

“One male poet approached me after a performance and said, “I don’t mean to be rude, but do you ever write about anything other than the struggles of women?” I replied, “I don’t mean to be rude, but take your finger off the trigger and I’ll stop.” After all, who among us ever wanted to speak about these things? What little girl dreams of growing up to write ‘rape poems?’ About violence? About the muffled voices of women worldwide?” -Andrea Gibson

[mizzousociologyofgender]

Have you read Stone Butch Blues yet?

Well, have you? 

http://leslie-feinberg.tumblr.com/

If not, you have some amazing reading ahead of you. However, at the moment you might be hard pressed to find a copy of the book for a decent price. Feinberg has "taken Stone Butch Blues off the capitalist market". This action has been dedicated to CeCe McDonald, a transgender woman of color who has been charged with manslaughter for defending herself during a hate crime. More info on CeCe's story can be found at the link below:

http://socialistworker.org/2012/05/07/cece-stands-her-ground

Feinberg has been a strong supporter and voice for CeCe and transgender people across the world. Feinberg was arrested for declaring the "people's verdict" or "FREE CECE NOW!" on a courthouse wall during an activist march for CeCe. Feinberg was the only person, out of hundreds, to be arrested during the march. This act is seen as a gendered abuse of power and privilege. 

An endearing picture of a visit between Feinberg and CeCe:

I mention that you should read Stone Butch Blues because this novel by Feinberg changed my life, my identity, and queered my world entirely. Many see hir work of fiction as a semi-autobiographical story about how Leslie got into activism, Communism, and gender issues. The work is a coming of age story surrounding the main character, Jess, and her progression from a young butch, he/she to identifying/passing as a man and coming out again as "not a man". The love and life that goes on during the story put the words in my mouth about what it means to be butch and what is butch identity. 

Not to mention, hir writing will absolutely tug at your heartstrings:

Feinberg's work Transgender Warriors is referenced in many article I've come across in my own research. One such article is the moving piece, "What it Means to be Gendered Me" by Betsy Lucal. I am basing some empirical research that I'm doing for Soc of Gender off of some points in Lucal's article. Lucal writes about her experiences as a non-gender conforming individual and how gender is attributed to her, for her, and by her. The privileges and disadvantages of a masculine of center individual are highlighted and accounted for in Lucal's article. Not to mention, Lucal is the Chair for the American Sociological Society's Sex & Gender section. (P.S. C.J. Pascoe's CV boasts the position of Chair Elect for this ASA section in 2012-2013. Very cool.)

I LOVE and look up to both of these individuals, Lucal and Feinberg, for academic and personal reasons. If you want to be prompted to get up and do something about the world we live in, look into these two authors with greater detail. Talk to people, academics are not cold and heartless, especially those who truly care about their work and their mission for doing the research they do. 

[mizzousociologyofgender]

Using the Body as Activism

An interesting article we read recently was Gloria Steinem's If Men Could Menstruate. 

Full article (surely breaking some form of copyright law) online:

http://www.haverford.edu/psych/ddavis/p109g/steinem.menstruate.html

The article is humorous, relatable, and powerful. What I enjoyed was how I could apply the idea of menstruation to patriarchal power. Menstruation is one of those female bodied activities that can be totally taboo to talk about in public. Steinem combined the stigma that comes with speaking of menstruation and the stigma that comes with questioning the patriarchy. What I hope happened was that men read it thinking it was hilarious and shared it with their friends, then later or during the reading they realized what was being proposed and deep thought concerning the patriarchy occurred. BUT I have a feeling that there was less laughing and more scoffing when this was being read by men.

First, watch this interesting(?) video that Disney produced about menstruation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLhld_PI2zg

This article made me think about some recent news where a House congresswoman was banned from speaking on the floor after using the word "Vagina" while speaking. Simply mentioning 'womanly' topics or words tends to shut a conversation down abruptly. 

Youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGS9vo1avVg

Brown was discussing abortion regulation and made a reference to her vagina (GASP!). Goddess forbid someone actually talk about the anatomy that is being regulated through legislation! 

Now, I'd like to talk about using the body as a tool or medium for activism. 

If simply speaking about female anatomy or menstruation can cause a media blitzed outrage, what about acts of protest or activism that use the body as the medium to present the message? 

Is this obscene radicalism? Acts such as these are often criticized as indecent. You know, think of the children! Well, these bodies aren't being sexualized in their displays. So, kids have bodies too right? The idea that showing a nude body at all is a sexually perverse act just adheres to dominant patriarchy all over again in that women are seen a sexual objects for men. Men define what is sexual. Hegemonic masculinity requires men to present themselves as being unable to control their biological drive of MOAR SEX! This is also demeaning for men or masculine identities. Using bodies as activism subverts patriarchy in multiple ways, and all these ways aim to put control over women's' bodies into women's' hands. 

Who has the power to decide what size a model must be? How about a plus size model? Placing some simple facts on top of a real live nude body can make a powerful statement about....wel....POWER!

[mizzousociologyofgender]

C.J. Pascoe is Brilliant AND Stigmatized Fag Discourse Research Question.

Here's a picture of the scholar for those who need a face to the name. 

Basically, thanks to C.J.'s work in Dude, You're a Fag, I feel prompted to answer a research question. This stems off of C.J.'s concept of "fag discourse". My question is this: Does or How Does the Fag Epithet play out in a location where it is stigmatized? 

Pascoe approached the developing masculinity of adolescent boys (and girls) in her empirical  study at Riverside High. Some key points to take away from Dude, You're a Fag, are:

1.) The Fag Epithet is used to police male behavior. The rules are strict and easily sanctioned and were pervasive in Pascoe's research site.

2.) Fag Discourse is a very gendered form of homophobia. Pascoe determined that the label "fag" was not necessarily tied to sexuality, but it is strongly associated with gender. Also, while the subjects in the study said they would not use "fag" towards a gay individual the discourse was used on all who did not adhere to aim for hegemonic masculinity. Therefore, it was used on all those who do not display proper masculinity regardless of orientation (i.e. it was absolutely practiced on gay individuals). Female individuals can be masculine. These girls got more respect in C.J.'s study than unmasculine males. 

3.) The Fag Label can be mapped. The fag identity for most individuals is temporary, but it can only be lost when it is placed on someone else. Picture this: Jimmy's finger is slammed in his friend's locker door between classes. When Jimmy yelps due to the pain, Sean calls Jimmy a "fag". Jimmy (burned and labeled) and Sean walk to class. On the way they see a friend who went on a date the past weekend. Jimmy states, "Dude, I heard Christine ditched Josh at the movies this weekend. He's such a fag. He can't even keep a girl interested for a couple hours." Does this make sense? One can follow where the identity moves and how it is lost only when it is put onto someone else. This creates a mean spirited cycle that polices masculine displays where no one is immune.

4.) Mild to Severe forms of Bullying are Pervasive and Severe. The institution supports and encourages hegemonic masculinity, which involves the dominance and control over women in particular (but includes other men as well). Students were regularly harassed and the school did little to stop it, faculty even participated. 

5.) Heterosexuality is Compulsive. Public sexuality is as much about masculine displays as it as about emotion or attraction. Dominance over women is primary to masculinity. 

Questions? Ok, so these are obviously just some points in the book that relate to this question that is floating around in my head. I asked C.J. for some direction for research on the subject of what I am going to call Stigmatized Fag Epithet. 

In her book C.J. notes that the juxtaposition of the fag identity with compulsive heterosexuality increased or highlighted masculinity in young men. This idea in particular raised my question of stigmatized fag epithet. Based on my own previous life experiences with several Christian youth groups, I ask how does this play out in a location where hate and foul language is stigmatized. A boy in church may not be allowed to participate in this masculinizing practice of throwing the fag label at others and deflecting or directing it himself to affirm his masculinity. OR can they???

Here's the idea fleshed out a bit:

-Hate is a sin. Simple idea, basked up by lots of references in the main Christian text (aka the Bible). For some idea of how hate is seen in the church check out this site, although this particular site does not necessarily reflect the exact views of all denominations.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm

-Many denominations do not condone homosexuality and believe it is also a sin. BUT often homosexuality is seen as either a forgivable sin or a sin not allowed in the church, but allowed for lay people. See the wiki below. (yeah, wiki reference, but this gave a concise description of denominational stances on homosexuality).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominational_positions_on_homosexuality

-Masculinity must be affirmed in different ways in the church (other than the fag epithet or explicit sexual domination/conquest of female bodies) due to pledges of abstinence and avoidance of sin (hate). According to Amy Wilkins' article "Masculinity Dilemmas" Christian "non participation in heterosexual conquest" is justified by the self-control attributed to abstinence and hides other "gender discrediting" attributes so masculinity is still constructed and performed, but in an alternative fashion. 

Wilkins, Amy C. 2009. “Masculinity Dilemmas: Sexuality and Intimacy Talk amongChristians and Goths.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34.2: 343-68.

-This is a lot of information, but bear with me, it's worth it. 

Overall:

***The fag discourse polices masculinity (Pascoe) +Hate is sin, fag is hate speech/foul language and cannot be verbally performed + Juxtaposition of fag identity with heterosexual masculine performance bolsters masculinity + Christians find alternative ways to perform masculinity in lieu of heterosexual conquests (Wilkins) = The fag discourse could be played out in the modern youth group in more physical interactions or physical juxtaposition of fag identity with heterosexuality.

I've heard the observation that men in prayer is an intimate picture. I agree that this religious practice is personal and intimate, but to the lay person it also seems somewhat contradictory to hegemonic masculinity. Sure, homosocial bonding is required for masculinity, but this does not necessarily involve long moments of physical touch or softly spoken personal feelings and desires. 

I would propose an empirical study consisting of participant observation and interviews to study this phenomenon of stigmatized fag discourse in modern youth groups. I take this from my own participation in youth groups earlier in my life. 

It was always offensive when leaders would make fun of homosexuality in skits or informal conversations. This was rarely explicit in that it was not verbally claimed as homosexual mimicry or mockery, but it was definitely implied. These performances that were condoned by various religious institutions (youth groups) coupled with what seemed like a general acceptance of fag mimicry between male friends made me question the sexuality of many of my male friends within youth groups (just being honest)

But when these performances were juxtaposed with heterosexual displays, it bolstered the male heterosexuality and masculinity just as if the fag discourse had occurred verbally such as it did in Pascoe's research. 

I agree with Pascoe and Wilkins in that adolescent boys use the fag epithet to police masculinity and bolster heterosexual performance, but alternate means of this discourse are necessary in a social location where the fag discourse is stigmatized as hate/sin/foul language. 

[mizzousociologyofgender]

Mickey Mouse Monopoly and Wizards of Waverly Place...Cringe

Disclaimer: I'm not aiming to simply bash Disney, but I can't overlook the obvious issues surrounding that company. However, there is something about their movies that have an attractiveness. I mean, seriously, how could a movie made fore a child make me cry so damn much?!

#youknowyoucriedtoo

OK, on to the real discussion. 

Nope...not that kind of monopoly. This was an educational film we've watched in just about every class I've taken that deals with inequality. We're talking about how Disney historically and systematically reinforces hegemonic identities. This means not only the already reproduced understanding of gender as binary, but also agist, racist, and classist notions which are often held by privileged populations. 

For instance, Beauty and the Beast. Belle is smart, which she is looked down on for, and she is independent, adventurous and self-assured. Even when facing aggressive, semi-abusive pursuit of the town hunk she remains solid in herself while she denies his attempts. Sweet! But then, then she wanders off (silly girl!) and gets trapped by a beast (why is this a theme our kids watch? why is nobody calling the cops rather than the angry mob of villagers?). This beast turns out to be just the male identity that she needs to truly identify as a useful woman! She socializes the beast and eventually gets her man (oh thank god!). 

Question, has anyone even referred to a couple they know as a "beauty and the beast" kind of couple? You know, when the well-put-together girl who always got good grades and was friends with everyone gets with the guy is large, hairy, probably played football or wrestled, didn't get great grades, and had similar friends; a generally rough person. And when they somehow fit together so perfectly we all say, "Aw! (or "ew" depending on how you see it) It's like Beauty and the Beast!" Right. A girl takes a guy who is the social equivalent of an animal and we romanticize it like she's made an amazing choice. All because of this film. What about her career? What is she wants to go into academia? Can she take her husband to a conference or department fundraiser and trust that he will be able to hold some sort of conversation with her peers? If he does this, will it be a miracle that Disney should make a movie out of? 

Not to mention that she was originally pictured as a woman who is intelligent, personable, self-assured, and cares for a loved one. She can take care of her self AND those around her. Why does she need the Beast so badly? Not sure, other than to perpetuate the idea that a female may only be validated through the approval and attainment of a male. Until the Beast trapped her, she didn't need saving, validation, or any help. But, fuck it, let's pretend that the Beast hasn't trapped a completely confident female and forced her to rely on him, let's pretend that isn't completely abusive and would (hopefully) be questioned by our friends and family. Unless, that is, we are so used to seeing this kind of behavior that it is no longer seen as perpetuated, patriarchal, abuse of supposed power. 

riiiiiiggghhhht....[long sigh]

Okay, so the movie is pretty much showing us what we already know about these films. The commentators speak so frankly about the problems that it is easy to feel like you need to go throw out all your Disney films. It isn't hogwash, it isn't a myth (unless you also think global warming is a myth), and it isn't some liberal campaign. The video does a good job of making this information accessible and real to the view. Here's a clip on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byaMd_PNyIY

Even though they did this before I saw the film. I feel empowered now in the sense that I have the words to have a discussion with my family about how these things are correct. How women are not weak and they can use their own brains to approach the world rather than a man's. We try to avoid films/shows with horrible gender stereotypes, but this is nearly impossible these days. 

Now about those Wizards...

My kid watches this show when me and my wife aren't awake yet on the weekends. She used to watch it when we were up, but she learned really quick that we disapprove of this show. We have not told her she cannot watch the show, but she got the picture about our general feelings towards it. I think she may be cutting down compared to when she started because our commentary is easily understood and she is now retaining it enough that she cannot overlook the blatant gender issues on the show. She's 7, very bright, and perceptive, I think she sees the problem, but still finds the show funny and it a little torn. 

So, the main character in this show is a female high school student who is a wizard. I believe the main building blocks of every episode go like this:

1.) The girl is socially accepted, but a problem arises that involves either a social situation or an academic requirement, OR these two conflict and she cannot choose which is more important. 

2.) The older brother learns of the issue and advises to choose the responsible choice.

3.) The older brother is labeled a geek/nerd/buzzkill for thinking responsibility and hard work would be a good choice.

4.) The girl uses magic to get herself out of the situation.

5.)At first it seems like it's working, but then the magic comes around to bite her in the butt. 

6.) She either continues to try to use magic to stop, or is forced to own up to her wrong choices.

The show usually does not resolve the issue by making the girl character out to actually have a brain or be willing to use it or work hard for what she wants. She is also usually saved by a male or male voice. 

So, this girl is young, traditionally good looking, popular, and magical. Sounds suspiciously like some sort of white male sexual fantasy character. She can make no decisions and lacks intelligence to the point that she even has no common sense. Awesome, she will make a good wife one day! Right? 

Thanks Disney for continuing to perpetuate oppressive stereotypes for our children! It makes it so easy for them to understand and internalize!

I hope I never have to hear my daughter tell me that she can't to homework because she's too lazy, or it's not cool or some other horrific reason for this character to ignore school and responsibility. 

[mizzousociologyofgender]

Reinforcing Gender in Childhood

Gender is socially constructed. Seems easy enough. We can sit around in a Gender course on a college campus and point out how people are socialized into gender groups. We can see how young children begin this gender socialization very early on. But what about when we change our view from this personal hindsight or academic understanding to a perspective of a person living in that paradigm we are examining? 

I'm saying that it is important to remember that children are people too. While we can look at institutions and interactions are say,

"Hey there Teacher and/or Family Member! You're teaching boys to be aggressive and girls to be passive! You're reinforcing gender stereotypes!" 

Barrie Thorne produced a pivotal work examining gender socialization in children titled "Gender Play: Creating a Sense of Opposite Sides". Thorne described how institutions such as family and school (school in particular) reinforce traditional dichotomous gender roles. 

Thorne's work was indeed important to sociological study of children and gender. However, We need to make sure as undergraduate students to examine this early gender socialization while keeping in mind that children are active participants in their own lives. There are a lot of ways in which we guide, model, and direct children, but their social interactions usually have the same goal as adults'. And as a young adult it is easy to forget that as a child, we were not preoccupied with belonging in the college community  we were concerned with belonging in the kid community. 

Children are trying to be successful in their social environment, which involves interacting with other children and child-focused institutions. This idea is explained in Allison Pugh's article "Longing and Belonging: Parents, Children, and Consumer Culture". Pugh describes how children aim to belong and long to have dignity in their social environment. This usually involves having the appropriate toys or participating in popular activities. Pugh shows how children actively work to belong in their world.

Last post we looked at the article "Beyond Pink and Blue" by Sharon Preves. There are always going to be questions surrounding how institutions can act differently to effectively socialize children while leaving other gender options than male/female.

This week we look at how toys are created and marketed to either male or female. Just look at how toys are packaged, colored, and identified for male or female children. This also points to appropriate activities for both male and female children. For instance, a medical toy kit is labeled as Doctor and colored blue with a picture of a male child on the box, and the same set of toys are labeled Nurse, colored pink, and have a picture of a girl on front. Based on the gender alone the kits are labeled differently, and we can look to it further to see which gender has the occupation which holds greater societal value. 

Another example can be seen during Halloween season. Just look at how costumes are marketed towards specific genders: 

What would be an appropriate response to this? How does one go about raising a child to have more gender options than the two that are accepted in society? Can it be done by parents alone? I'm not sure, because in the end a child is going to be bound by societal and institutional structure. Children want to belong, and often times this means adhering to what is popular and "normal". 

This can be seen when examining hair length in children. Typically, girls have long hair and boys have short hair. This is an important gender marker for children due to lack of other physical gender markers. When a girl has short hair, she is regularly asked 'why she has short hair?' and 'does she want to be a boy?' The reverse goes for boys who grow their hair out. They are asked similar questions. While the answers from children themselves usually stop the interrogations, the repetition of questioning makes the child aware that they are different. And difference does not further the social goal of belonging. Hence why these children might decide to grow their hair out or cut it short even though they may have been excited to change their hair in the first place. It is not necessarily shame that produced this need to conform, but the social value of belonging itself encourages abiding by stereotypical gender values and norms. 

I have noticed a movement in my own community. People are intrigued and excited to see children who break or bend these gender norms. While I do not know what is said behind closed doors, many people approach my 7 year old girl and compliment her on her Atomic Turquoise  colored, short hair. She had a mohawk prior to this wildly colored do. She hot compliment on the 'hawk as well. Many of the comments are only directed towards her, but when the complementor does address me or my partner, it is usually a comment insinuating that "it is so cool that she is not afraid to do that to her hair!" It is cool, is badass. But pointing out that there could be a fear, especially within earshot of my badass kid, reinforces the idea that colored and short hair on a girl is breaking some sort of rule, that it should be scary in some sense. 

All in all, I love gender bending kids who want to play with whatever toys they feel like, wear clothes that they feel comfortable in, and cut their hair however they want! I wish I could push my daughter to continue this norm-challenging that she is doing these days. But I have to also realize that she is an active part in her social world, and her goals as a kid are just as important as mine as an adult. So if she wants to bust out the sequin dress and heels, watch Pocahontas, and braid her long hair to look "pretty", fine.

Children should be allowed to be a part of their world. Their reality is just as gendered and intricate as ours, and it is full of contradictions and issues that are just as difficult to solve as any in the adult world. So let's praise the progressive, but we cannot abhor a child's desire to belong.

[mizzousociologyofgender]

Beyond Pink and Blue

This week we read Beyond Pink and Blue by S.E. Preves. This article covered an interesting event in the writer's life.

To paraphrase: She was on an elementary school trip (chaperone?) and the kids began to get rowdy. The teacher asked the children to form two lines, boys and girls. This sparked a thought about the construction of gender and the difficulties and ambiguities for the intersex community. She conducted face to face interviews with intersex individuals and also  reported statistics concerning the frequency of intersex births and gender assignment surgeries (which happen more frequently than society would like to mention).

A key point in Preves' article is how gender variant births are kept quiet within families and can cause trauma and identity confusion upon puberty or self-examination of an intersex individual. 

What I find interesting is the artists who are exploring intersex or gender variance and bringing it out in the open. Thanks to Autostraddle.com artists who are breaking some of these gender boundaries through their artwork are being promoted and discussed with more frequency. 

The artist Mars Hobrecker is a photographer exploring sexual identity and gender variance. On mars' website the artist is described as: "Born in Nova Scotia, Mars Hobrecker is a young photographer currently studying at the School of Visual Arts in New York with a focus on documenting the queer and gener variant community." Check out the website for more images and information. 

Mars

"Amos" Brooklyn 2011

"Man with Rabbit" Gladstone Gallery 2011

"Chris Tyler" New York 2012

[mizzousociologyofgender]

Prompt

This is my "gender journal" for Sociology 3320: Sociology of Gender. 

The prompt on the syllabus reads as: 

"The semester project in this course will be a weekly journal designed to connect the course material to your everyday lived experience. This journal will be completed in either a blog format or in old school paper form.  The project will be graded according to your ability to think through readings and lectures in the context of your own life.  At three points during the semester, your journal will be checked for adequate progress. [...] Creativity is both expected and rewarded."

This is gonna be a good one!