Sexism

Sexism

Sexism

Permalink:

Upon the foundation of a gender binary and the exercising of patriarchal power on individual, cultural, and institutional levels, the day-to-day structural mechanisms used to keep sexism in place take many forms. For example, if gender roles state that women are to be “feminine” and look attractive to men, then the creation of limiting and dehumanizing notions of “ideal female beauty” for women is an effective tool for keeping women powerless, especially in the public domain. Caroline Heldman’s article on body image (selection 65) aptly describes the societal impact of these fabricated images of beauty on women and how they conspire to disempower women economi- cally, psychologically, and politically. The Chernik reading (selection 67) adds to this discussion by demonstrating the deadly effects of this imagery on women in the form of eating disorders and the illusory power that the cult of thinness (Nagy Hesse-Biber, 2007) creates in this society. Other mechanisms of sexism such as the wage gap discussed in Aaron Bernstein’s piece (selection 66), violence against women discussed in the Katz article (selection 64), or the use of language as seen in both the Morgan and Kirk and Okazawa-Rey pieces (selections 68 and 69) should be understood as both products of sexism and tools used to maintain it in our society.

HISTORY AND INTERSECTIONALITY

Acquiring a basic understanding of the ideological and structural dynamics of sexism in society begs the question of what to do about it. In my teaching and training throughout the years, I have encountered many people who suggest that while sexism is wrong, it is just too pervasive and there is nothing we can do about it. I am sure there are a range of reasons for their thinking this, but one that warrants highlighting is the often complete lack of knowledge about the long history of women’s (and some men’s) organizing, resistance, and social change movements in this country. While complicated and often problematic, the history of the women’s movements in the United States demonstrates powerful and effective ways to challenge both the manifestations of sexism and the foundations that give rise to it. From the first “women’s rights convention” in Seneca Falls, NY, in 1848 to the presidential, congressional, and local elections of 2012, we have seen examples of women making history through their challenges to the limiting gender roles and power structures that marginalize them. At its best, this history demonstrates the need for a broad-based platform addressing women’s rights, the power of consciousness-raising groups, the transformational power of claiming voice, and the necessity for cross-issue organizing. There were also a range of mistakes made along the way and in particular the first and second waves’ inaccurate, simplifying assumptions concerning a single, uniform, universal woman’s experience. In the first wave, while the agenda called for “women’s rights,” the needs of women of color, and poor and working-class women, were marginalized in favor of the eventual limited agenda of suffrage for white, middle-class women. In the second wave, these same groups as well as lesbians and bisexual women, women with disabilities, and women who were not Christian were also pushed to the side in favor of the white, middle-class agenda for “equal rights.”

Due to space limitations, this section cannot discuss the many important lessons gleaned from these movements and the value of knowing this history (see section website for resources). It does, however, take these lessons seriously and highlights how we can actualize them in this current moment of fighting for women’s rights—the “third wave.” The Next Steps part of this section includes Ross Neely’s explanation of why, as a cisgendered man, he believes all men have a personal investment in feminism and a responsibility to end sexism (selection 70). This selection, along with Jackson Katz’s list of “ten things men can do to prevent gender violence” (Katz, 1999), illustrate the importance of men taking action to end sexism. It is crucial that men as well as women acknowledge that no form of oppression can be eradicated until the advantaged group can see how their core values are compromised by the existence of that oppression. These pieces are followed by Alice Walker (selection 71) where she addresses the impact of

“NIGHT TO HIS DAY” | 323

links to websites and to current sources of discussion and action, and activities ttiat can be used in ttie classroom or training settings.

In moving forward with this information, I would like to emphasize the importance of taking action, however subtle it may be, to end the oppression of women and girls. In an era where for the first time a woman has made a viable run for the White House, increasing numbers of women are in professional positions of power, and women are more represented in college admissions than men, it is tempting to say that sexism is over and do nothing. Scratching beneath the surface of these changes, however, it is obvious that sexism and patriarchy are both still firmly intact. Therefore, now is the time for broad-based and consistent action on the part of all us to end sexism and transform our society into one where women and girls feel safe and free and able to exercise their humanity to its fullest.

See Companion Website for Additional Resources and Material

References Botkin, S . , Jones , J . , Kachwaha, T. (2007). Sexism curriculum design. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, P. Griffin (eds).

Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice {2nd edition, pp. 173-194). New York: Routledge. Harris-Perry, M. (February 2 1 , 2012). The Melissa Harris-Perry Show [Television Broadcast] . New York, NY:

MSNBC. Jhally, S . (Director) and Kilbourne, J . (Co-Producer). (2010). Killing Us Softly 4 [Film]. Northampton, MA:

Media Education Foundation. Katz, Jackson . (1999). Ten Things Men Can Do to Prevent Gender Violence. Retrieved from http://www.

jacksonkatz.com/topten.html. Nagy Hesse-Biber, S . (2007). The Cult of Thinness. New York: Oxford University Press. Nanda, S . (2000). Gender Diversity: Crosscultural Variations. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Pharr, S . (1988). Homoptiobia as a Weapon of Sexism. Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press. Rich, A. (1986). Blood, Bread and Poetry: Selected Prose, 1979-1985. New York: Norton.

60

“Night to His Day”

The Social Construction of Gender

Judith Lorber

Talk ing about gender for most people is the equivalent of fish talking about water. Gender is so much the routine ground of everyday activities that questioning its taken-for-granted assumptions and presuppositions is like thinking about whether the sun w i l l come up. Gender is so pervasive that in our society we assume it is bred into our genes. M o s t people f ind it hard to believe that gender is constantly created and re-created out of human inter- action, out of social l i fe , and is the texture and order of that social l ife. Yet gender, l ike culture, is a human product ion that depends on everyone constantly “d o ing gender.”

A n d everyone “does gender” wi thout th inking about it. Today, on the subway, 1 saw a well-dressed man w i t h a year-old child in a stroller. Yesterday, on a bus, I saw a man w i t h

“NIGHT TO HIS DAY” 325

organs, the main physiological differences of females and males. I n the construction of ascribed social statuses, physiological differences such as sex, stage of development, color of sk in , and size are crude markers . T h e y are not the source of the social statuses of gender, age grade, and race. Social statuses are carefully constructed through prescribed processes of teaching, learning, emulat ion, and enforcement. Whatever genes, hormones, and biological evolution contribute to human social institutions is material ly as w e l l as qualitatively transformed by social practices. . . . T h u s , . . . gender cannot be equated w i t h biological and physiological differences between human females and males. T h e building blocks of gender are socially constructed statuses. . . .

FOR INDIVIDUALS, GENDER MEANS SAMENESS

Although the possible combinations of genitalia, body shapes, clothing, mannerisms, sexu- ality, and roles could produce infinite varieties in h u m a n beings, the social institution of gender depends on the production and maintenance of a l imited number of gender statuses and of making the members of these statuses s imilar to each other. Individuals are born sexed but not gendered, and they have to be taught to be masculine or feminine. A s Simone de Beauvoir said: ” O n e is not born, but rather becomes, a w o m a n . . . ; it is c ivi l izat ion as a whole that produces this creature . . . w h i c h is described as femin ine . ”

M a n y cultures go beyond clothing, gestures, and demeanor in gendering chi ldren. T h e y inscribe gender directly into bodies. . . . I n Western societies, w o m e n augment their breast size w i t h silicone and reconstruct their faces w i t h cosmetic surgery to conform to cultural ideals of feminine beauty. H a n n a Papanek notes that these practices reinforce the sense of superiority or inferiori ty in the adults w h o carry them out as w e l l as in the chi ldren on w h o m they are done. . . .

Sandra B e m argues that because gender is a power fu l ” s c h e m a ” that orders the cognitive w o r l d , one must wage a constant, active battle for a chi ld not to fall into typical gendered attitudes and behavior. I n 1972 , Ms. Magazine published L o i s Gould ‘ s fantasy of h o w to raise a chi ld free of gender-typing. T h e experiment calls for hiding the child’s anatomy f r o m a l l eyes except the parents ‘ and treating the chi ld as neither a gir l nor a boy. T h e chi ld , called X , gets to do al l the things boys and girls do. T h e experiment is so successful that al l the chi ldren in X ‘ s class at school w a n t to look and behave like X . At the end of the story, the creators of the experiment are asked w h a t w i l l happen w h e n X grows up. T h e scientists’ answer is that by then it w i l l be quite clear what X is, imply ing that its hormones w i l l k i ck in and it w i l l be revealed as a female or male. T h a t ambiguous, and somewhat contradictory, ending lets G o u l d off the hook; neither she nor we have any idea w h a t someone brought up totally androgynously w o u l d be like sexually or socially as an adult. T h e hormonal input w i l l not create gender or sexuality but w i l l only establish secondary sex characteristics; breasts, beards, and menstruation alone do not produce social man- hood or w o m a n h o o d . Indeed, it is at puberty, w h e n sex characteristics become evident, that most societies put pubescent chi ldren through their most important rites of passage, the rituals that off icial ly m a r k them as ful ly gendered—that is, ready to marry and become adults.

M o s t parents create a gendered w o r l d for their newborn by naming, bir th announce- ments, and dress. Chi ldren ‘ s relationships w i t h same-gendered and different-gendered caretakers structure their self-identifications and personalities. T h r o u g h cognitive develop- ment, chi ldren extract and apply to their o w n actions the appropriate behavior for those w h o belong in their o w n gender, as w e l l as race, rel igion, ethnic group, and social class,

“NIGHT TO HIS DAY” |

T h i s feminizat ion is part of a dehberate pohcy of making them clearly distinguishable f r o m men Mar ines . Chris t ine W i l l i a m s quotes a twenty-f ive-year-old w o m a n dr i l l mstructor as saying: ” A lot of the recruits w h o come here don’t wear makeup; they’re tomboyish or athletic. A lot of them have the preconceived idea that going into the mil i tary means they can still be a tomboy. T h e y don’t realize that you are a Woman M a r i n e ” (1989) .

I f gender differences were genetic, physiological , or hormonal , gender bending and gender ambiguity w o u l d occur only in . . . [those] w h o are born w i t h chromosomes and genitaha that are not clearly female or male. Since gender differences are socially con- structed, al l men and al l w o m e n can enact the behavior of the other, because they k n o w the other’s social script: ” ‘ M a n ‘ and ‘ w o m a n ‘ are at once empty and over f lowing categories. E m p t y because they have no ultimate, transcendental meaning. O v e r f l o w i n g because even w h e n they appear to be f ixed , they still contain w i t h i n them alternative, denied, or sup- pressed def ini t ions” ( J . W Scott 1988) . Nonetheless, though individuals may be able to shift gender statuses, the gender boundaries have to hold , or the whole gendered social order w i l l come crashing d o w n .

GENDER AS PROCESS, STRATIFICATION, AND STRUCTURE

A s a social insti tution, gender is a process of creating distinguishable social statuses for the assignment of rights and responsibilities. As part of a stratification system that ranks these statuses unequally, gender is a major building block in the social structures built on these unequal statuses.

As a process, gender creates the social differences that define ” w o m a n ” and ” m a n . ” In social interaction throughout their lives, individuals learn what is expected, see what is expected, act and react in expected ways, and thus simultaneously construct and maintain the gender order: ” T h e very injunction to be a given gender takes place through discursive routes: to be a good mother, to be a heterosexually desirable object, to be a fit worker , in sum, to signify a mult ipl ic i ty of guarantees in response to a variety of different demands all at once” ( J . Butler 1990) . Members of a social group neither make up gender as they go along nor exactly replicate in rote fashion what was done before. I n almost every encoun- ter, human beings produce gender, behaving in the ways they learned were appropriate for their gender status, or resisting or rebelling against these norms. Resistance and rebellion have altered gender norms, but so far they have rarely eroded the statuses.

Gendered patterns of interaction acquire additional layers of gendered sexuality, parent- ing, and w o r k behaviors in chi ldhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Gendered norms and expectations are enforced through in formal sanctions of gender-inappropriate behavior by peers and by formal punishment or threat of punishment by those in authority should behavior deviate too far f rom socially imposed standards for women and men.

E v e r y d a y gendered interactions build gender into the family, the w o r k process, and other organizations and institutions, w h i c h in turn reinforce gender expectations for indi – viduals. Because gender is a process, there is room not only for modification and variat ion by individuals and small groups but also for institutionahzed change.

As part of a stratification system, gender ranks men above women of the same race and class. W o m e n and men could be different but equal. In practice, the process of creating difference depends to a great extent on differential evaluation. As N a n c y Jay (1981) says: ” T h a t w h i c h is defined, separated out, isolated f rom all else is A and pure. N o t – A is neces- sari ly impure , a random catchall , to w h i c h nothing is external except A and the principle of order that separates it f r o m N o t – A . ” F r o m the individual ‘s point of view, whichever gender

MASCULINITY AS HOMOPHOBIA | 329

contested—construction. Both ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are w o v e n of multiple, asymmetrical strands of difference, charged w i t h multifaceted dramatic narratives of dominat ion and struggle” ( H a r a w a y 1990) .

61

Masculinity as Homophobia

Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity

Michael S. Kimmel

We think of manhood as eternal, a timeless essence that resides deep in the heart of every man. We think of manhood as a thing, a quality that one either has or doesn’t have. We think of manhood as innate, residing in the particular biological composit ion of the h u m a n male, the result of androgens or the possession of a penis. We think of manhood as a transcendent tangible property that each man must manifest in the w o r l d , the reward presented w i t h great ceremony to a young novice by his elders for having successfully completed an arduous initiation r i tual . . . .

I v i e w masculinity as a constantly changing collection of meanings that w e construct through our relationships w i t h ourselves, w i t h each other, and w i t h our w o r l d . M a n h o o d is neither static nor timeless; it is historical . M a n h o o d is not the manifestation of an inner essence; it is socially constructed. M a n h o o d does not bubble up to consciousness f rom our biological makeup; it is created in culture. M a n h o o d means different things at different times to different people. We come to k n o w what it means to be a man in our culture by setting our definitions in opposition to a set of ” o t h e r s ” — racial minorit ies , sexual m i n o r i – ties, and, above a l l , w o m e n .

T h i s idea that manhood is socially constructed and historically shifting should not be understood as a loss, that something is being taken away f rom men. I n fact, it gives us something extraordinar i ly valuable—agency, the capacity to act. I t gives us a sense of historical possibilities to replace the despondent resignation that invariably attends time- less, ahistorical essentialisms. O u r behaviors are not simply ” just human nature , ” because “boys w i l l be boys . ” F r o m the materials we f ind around us in our culture—other people, ideas, objects—we actively create our wor lds , our identities. M e n , both individual ly and collectively, can change.

MASCULINITY AS A HOMOSOCIAL ENACTMENT

Other men; We are under the constant careful scrutiny of other men. Other men watch us, rank us, grant our acceptance into the realm of manhood. M a n h o o d is demonstrated for other men’s approval . I t is other men w h o evaluate the performance. L i terary cri t ic

MASCULINITY AS HOMOPHOBIA | 331

of two things is hkely to happen. One boy w i l l accuse another of being a sissy, to w h i c h that boy w i l l respond that he is not a sissy, that the first boy is. T h e y may have to fight it out to see w h o ‘ s lying. O r a whole group of boys w i l l surround one boy and al l shout ” H e is ! H e i s ! ” T h a t boy w i l l either burst into tears and r u n home crying, disgraced, or he w i l l have to take on several boys at once, to prove that he’s not a sissy. (And w h a t w i l l his father or older brothers tell h i m if he chooses to run home crying?) It w i l l be some time before he regains any sense of self-respect.

Violence is often the single most evident marker of manhood. Rather it is the w i l l i n g – ness to fight, the desire to fight. T h e origin of our expression that one has a chip on one’s shoulder lies in the practice of an adolescent boy i n the country or small t o w n at the turn of the century, w h o w o u l d l iterally w a l k around w i t h a chip of w o o d balanced on his shoulder—a signal of his readiness to fight w i t h anyone w h o w o u l d take the initiative of knock ing the chip off.

As adolescents, we learn that our peers are a k i n d of gender police, constantly threaten- ing to unmask us as feminine, as sissies. One of the favorite tricks w h e n I was an adolescent was to ask a boy to look at his fingernails. I f he held his pa lm toward his face and curled his fingers back to see them, he passed the test. H e ‘ d looked at his nails ” l ike a m a n . ” But if he held the back of his hand away f rom his face, and looked at his fingernails w i t h arm outstretched, he was immediately r idiculed as a sissy.

A s young men we are constantly r iding those gender boundaries, checking the fences we have constructed on the perimeter, making sure that nothing even remotely feminine might show through. T h e possibiUties of being unmasked are everywhere . E v e n the most seemingly insignificant thing can pose a threat or activate that haunting terror. O n the day the students in my course “Sociology of M e n and Mascul in i t ies ” were scheduled to discuss homophobia and male-male friendships, one student provided a touching i l lustrat ion. N o t i n g that it was a beautiful day, the first day of spring after a brutal northeast winter , he decided to wear shorts to class. ” I had this really nice pair of new Madras shorts , ” he commented. ” B u t then I thought to myself, these shorts have lavender and pink in them. Today ‘ s class topic is homophobia. Maybe today is not the best day to wear these shorts . ”

O u r efforts to maintain a manly front cover everything we do. W h a t we wear. H o w we talk. H o w we w a l k . W h a t we eat. E v e r y mannerism, every movement contains a coded gender language. T h i n k , for example, of h o w you w o u l d answer the question: H o w do you ” k n o w ” if a man is homosexual? W h e n I ask this question in classes or workshops , respon- dents invariably provide a pretty standard list of stereotypically effeminate behaviors. H e w a l k s a certain way, talks a certain way, acts a certain way. H e ‘ s very emotional ; he shows his feelings. O n e w o m a n commented that she ” k n o w s ” a man is gay if he really cares about her; another said she k n o w s he’s gay if he shows no interest in her, if he leaves her alone.

N o w alter the question and imagine what heterosexual men do to make sure no one could possibly get the ” w r o n g idea” about them. Responses typically refer to the original stereotypes, this time as a set of negative rules about behavior. N e v e r dress that way. Never talk or w a l k that way. Never show your feelings or get emotional . A l w a y s be prepared to demonstrate sexual interest i n w o m e n that you meet, so it is impossible for any w o m a n to get the w r o n g idea about you. I n this sense, homophobia , the fear of being perceived as gay, as not a real man, keeps men exaggerating al l the traditional rules of masculinity, including sexual predation w i t h w o m e n . H o m o p h o b i a and sexism go hand in hand.

T h e stakes of perceived sissydom are enormous—sometimes matters of life and death. We take enormous risks to prove our manhood, exposing ourselves disproportionately to health risks, workplace hazards, and stress-related illnesses. M e n commit suicide three times as often as w o m e n . . . .

MASCULINITY AS HOMOPHOBIA

against the perceived threat of humihat ion i n the eyes of other men, enacted through a “sequence of postures”—things we might say, or do, or even think, that, if we thought carefully about them, w o u l d make us ashamed of ourselves. After a l l , h o w many of us have made homophobic or sexist remarks , or told racist jokes, or made lewd comments to w o m e n on the street? H o w many of us have translated those ideas and those words into actions, by physically attacking gay men, or forcing or cajoling a w o m a n to have sex even though she didn’t really want to because it was important to score?

POWER AND POWERLESSNESS IN THE LIVES OF MEN

I have argued that homophobia , men’s fear of other men, is the animating condit ion of the dominant definit ion of masculinity in A m e r i c a , that the reigning definit ion of masculinity is a defensive effort to prevent being emasculated. I n our efforts to suppress or overcome those fears, the dominant culture exacts a tremendous price f r o m those deemed less than ful ly manly: w o m e n , gay men, nonnative-born men, men of color. T h i s perspective may help clarify a paradox in men’s l ives, a paradox in w h i c h men have vir tual ly al l the power and yet do not feel powerfu l .

M a n h o o d is equated w i t h p o w e r — o v e r w o m e n , over other men. E v e r y w h e r e we look, w e see the institutional expression of that p o w e r — i n state and national legislatures, on the boards of directors of every major U . S . corporat ion or l a w f i r m , and in every school and hospital administrat ion. Women have long understood this, and feminist w o m e n have spent the past three decades challenging both the public and the private expressions of men’s power and acknowledging their fear of men. Feminism as a set of theories both explains w o m e n ‘ s fear of men and empowers w o m e n to confront it both publicly and privately. Feminist w o m e n have theorized that masculinity is about the drive for domina- t ion, the drive for power, for conquest.

T h i s feminist definit ion of masculinity as the drive for power is theorized from women ‘s point of view. I t is h o w w o m e n experience masculinity. But it assumes a symmetry between the public and the private that does not conform to men’s experiences. Feminists observe that w o m e n , as a group, do not hold power in our society. T h e y also observe that i n d i v i d u – ally, they, as w o m e n , do not feel powerfu l . T h e y feel afra id, vulnerable. T h e i r observation of the social reality and their individual experiences are therefore symmetrical . Feminism also observes that men, as a group, are in power. T h u s , w i t h the same symmetry, feminism has tended to assume that individual ly men must feel p o w e r f u l .

T h i s is w h y the feminist critique of masculinity often falls on deaf ears w i t h men. W h e n confronted w i t h the analysis that m e n have al l the power, many men react incredulously. ” W h a t do you mean, men have al l the p o w e r ? ” they ask. ” W h a t are you talking about? M y wi fe bosses me around. M y kids boss me around. M y boss bosses me around. I have no power at a l l ! I ‘ m completely powerless ! ”

M e n ‘ s feelings are not the feelings of the power fu l , but of those w h o see themselves as powerless. These are the feelings that come inevitably f r o m the discontinuity between the social and the psychological , between the aggregate analysis that reveals how men are i n power as a group and the psychological fact that they do not feel power fu l as individuals . T h e y are the feelings of men w h o were raised to believe themselves entitled to feel that power, but do not feel it . N o wonder many men are frustrated and angry.

T h e dimension of power is n o w reinserted into men’s experience not only as the prod- uct of individual experience but also as the product of relations w i t h other men. I n this sense, men’s experience of powerlessness is real—the men actually feel it and certainly act

PATRIARCHY THE SYSTEM | 335

of them—are oppressive people. N o t surprisingly, many men take it personally if someone merely mentions patriarchy or the oppression of w o m e n , bristl ing at what they often see as a w a y to make them feel guilty. A n d some w o m e n feel free to blame indiv idual men for patriarchy simply because they’re men. Some of the time, men feel defensive because they identify w i t h patriarchy and its values and don’t want to face the consequences these produce or the prospect of giving up male privilege. But defensiveness more often reflects a common confusion about the difference between patriarchy as a k i n d of society and the people w h o participate in it. I f we ‘re ever going to w o r k toward real change, it ‘s a confu- sion w e ‘ l l have to clear up.

To do this, we have to realize that we ‘ re stuck in a model of social life that views everything as beginning and ending w i t h individuals . L o o k i n g at things in this way, we tend to think that i f evil exists in the w o r l d , it ‘s only because there are evi l people w h o have entered into an evi l conspiracy. Rac ism exists, for example, s imply because white people are racist bigots w h o hate members of racial and ethnic minorit ies and want to do them ha rm. T h e r e is gender oppression because men want and l ike to dominate w o m e n and act out hostility toward them. T h e r e is poverty and class oppression because people in the upper classes are greedy, heartless, and cruel . T h e fl ip side of this individualist ic model of guilt and blame is that race, gender, and class oppression are actually not oppression at a l l , but merely the sum of indiv idual failings on the part of blacks, w o m e n , and the poor, w h o lack the right stuff to compete successfully wi th whites , men, and others w h o k n o w h o w to make something of themselves.

W h a t this k i n d of th inking ignores is that we are all participating in something larger than ourselves or any collection of us. O n some level, most people are familiar w i t h the idea that social life involves us in something larger than ourselves, but few seem to k n o w w h a t to do w i t h that idea. . . . H o w , for example, do w e participate in patriarchy, and h o w does that l ink us to the consequences it produces? H o w is w h a t we think of as ” n o r m a l ” hfe related to male dominance, women’s oppression, and the hierarchical , control-obsessed w o r l d in w h i c h they, and our hves, are embedded?

Wi thout asking such questions we can’t understand gender ful ly and we avoid taking responsibihty either for ourselves or for patriarchy. Instead, “the system” serves as a vague, unarticulated catch-all , a dumping ground for social problems, a scapegoat that can never be held to account and that, for all the power we think it has, can’t talk back or actually do anything. . . .

I f we see patriarchy as nothing more than men’s and women ‘s indiv idual personalities, motivations, and behavior, for example, then it probably w o n ‘ t even occur to us to ask about larger contexts—such as institutions l ike the family, religion, and the economy—and h o w people’s lives are shaped i n relation to them. F r o m this k i n d of individualist ic perspec- tive, we might ask w h y a particular man raped, harassed, or beat a w o m a n . We w o u l d n ‘ t ask, however, what k i n d of society w o u l d promote persistent patterns of such behavior in everyday l ife, f r o m wife-beating jokes to the routine inclusion of sexual coercion and violence in mainstream movies. . . .

I f the goal is to change the w o r l d , this w o n ‘ t help us. We need to see and deal w i t h the social roots that generate and nurture the social problems that are reflected in the behavior of individuals . We can’t do this wi thout realizing that we all participate in something larger than ourselves, something we didn’ t create but that we have the power to affect through the choices we make about how to participate.

T h a t something larger is patriarchy, w h i c h is more than a collection of individuals (such as ” m e n ” ) . I t is a system, w h i c h means it can’t be reduced to the people w h o participate in it . . . .

[P]atriarchy [is] a k i n d of society that is more than a collection of w o m e n and men and can’t be understood simply by understanding them. We are not patriarchy, no more than

PATRIARCHY, THE SYSTEM | 337

” m a s c u l i n e ” ) , and to lack such power or to be reluctant to use it is seen as we ak if not contemptible (and characteristically ” f e m i n i n e ” ) .

G o i n g deeper into patriarchal culture, we f ind a complex web of ideas that define reality and what ‘ s considered good and desirable. To see the w o r l d through patriarchal eyes is to believe that w o m e n and men are profoundly different in their basic natures, that hierarchy is the only alternative to chaos, and that men were made i n the image of a masculine G o d w i t h w h o m they enjoy a special relationship. It is to take as obvious the idea that there are two and only two distinct genders; that patriarchal heterosexuahty is ” n a t u r a l ” and same- sex attraction is not; that because men neither bear nor breast-feed chi ldren, they cannot feel a compell ing bodily connection to them; that on some level every w o m a n , whether heterosexual or lesbian, wants a ” rea l m a n ” w h o k n o w s h o w to “take charge of things,” including her; that females can’t be trusted, especially w h e n they’re menstruating or accus- ing men of sexual misconduct. To embrace patriarchy is to believe that mothers should stay home and that fathers should w o r k out of the home, regardless of men’s and women ‘s actual abilities or needs. It is to buy into the not ion that w o m e n are weak and men are strong, that w o m e n and chi ldren need men to support and protect them, al l in spite of the fact that in many ways men are not the physically stronger sex, that vv’omen perform a huge share of hard physical labor in many societies (often larger than men’s) , that women ‘s physical endurance tends to be greater than men’s over the long haul , that w o m e n tend to be more capable of enduring pain and emotional stress. A n d yet such evidence means little in the face of a patr iarchal culture that dictates h o w things ought to be . . . .

To live in a patr iarchal culture is to learn what ‘s expected of us as men and w o m e n , the rules that regulate punishment and reward based on how we behave and appear. These rules range f r o m laws that require men to fight in wars not of their o w n choosing to customary expectations that mothers w i l l provide child care, or that when a w o m a n shows sexual interest in a man or merely smiles or acts friendly, she gives up her right to say no and control her o w n body. A n d to live under patriarchy is to take into ourselves shared ways of feeling—the hostile contempt for femaleness that forms the core of misogyny and presumptions of male superiority, the ridicule men direct at other men w h o show signs of vulnerabihty or weakness, or the fear and insecurity that every w o m a n must deal w i t h w h e n she exercises the right to move freely in the w o r l d , especially at night and by herself. Such ideas make up the symbolic sea we s w i m in and the air we breathe. T h e y are the pr imary w e l l f r o m w h i c h springs h o w we think about ourselves, other people, and the w o r l d . As such, they provide a taken-for-granted everyday reality, the setting for our interactions w i t h other people that continually fashion and refashion a shared sense of what the w o r l d is about and w h o we are in relation to it. T h i s doesn’t mean that the ideas under ly ing patriarchy determine w h a t we think, feel, and do, but it does mean they define what w e ‘ l l have to deal with as we participate in it .

T h e prominent place of misogyny in patriarchal culture, for example, doesn’t mean that every man and w o m a n consciously hates a l l things female. But it does mean that to the extent that we don’t feel such hatred, it ‘s in spite o/” paths of least resistance contained i n our culture. Complete freedom f r o m such feelings and judgments is all but impossible. I t is certainly possible for heterosexual men to love w o m e n wi thout mentally fragmenting them into breasts, buttocks, genitals, and other variously desirable parts. I t is possible for w o m e n to feel good about their bodies, to not judge themselves as being too fat, to not abuse themselves to one degree or another in pursuit of impossible male-identif ied standards of beauty and sexual attractiveness. A l l of this is possible; but to live in patriarchy is to breathe in misogynist images of w o m e n as objectified sexual property valued pr imar i ly for their usefulness to men. T h i s finds its way into everyone w h o grows up breathing and s w i m m i n g i n it , and once inside us it remains, however unaware of it we may be. So, w h e n

I SEXISM

supremacy and women’s “purity,” and the same religiously based heteronormative mindset that has now allowed thirty (and counting) states to mandate that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Thus, while the more things have certainly changed for the better for women In this country, the more they seek to stay the same by working to diminish women’s rights and ultimately maintain sexism in this society.

Returning to my students’ question then, exactly how can all this happen well over a decade into the twenty-first century; how does this system of oppression work? Most simply, oppression involves a dominant group (the group possessing societal power) exerting both ideological and structural control over a subordinate group (the group without societal power) in order to benefit the dominant group. Importantly, the dominant group does not have to be the numeric majority (as is the case with men in the United States since they make up only 48 percent of the popula- tion), but simply has to be in control of the most significant structures of power in the society. In the case of sexism, the ideological control comes through the creation and enforcement of socially constructed gender roles, while the structural control arises from the use of cultural and institutional power held by men to deny resources to and extract resources from women for the benefit of men. The symbiotic nature of these two forms of control then work together to create the dominant and subordinate statuses, assign meaning to them (through gender stereotypes and assumptions), and then use them to justify a system of gender inequality that benefits men. Over time, this system becomes omnipresent and naturalized, thus becoming self-maintaining and self-reinforced (hegemony). Comprehending how these two components operate is an essential step in being able to challenge sexism and is, therefore, the focus of this entire section.

IDEOLOGICAL CONTROL AND GENDER

Understanding how gender supports sexism requires the explanation of a few key concepts such as gender roles, gender socialization, and gender identity. Socially constructed gender roles are the rigid categories (and there are only two) that characterize what it means to be “feminine” and “masculine” in this society. They are clearly articulated, ruthlessly enforced, and inflexible in their expression. Men do not cry, women should always look beautiful (for men), men never ask for directions, women are “natural” caretakers, men are tough, women are emotional, men are studs, women are domestic, and so on. These roles are taught to us by a process of gender socialization (see Harro, selection 6) whereby the messages of what it means to be a man or woman are conveyed to us by every possible socializing structure in society—our families tell us how to behave, our schools tell us what we can achieve, and our media tells us what we need to look like. And because people who identify as women make up over half of the U.S. population, this socialization begins before birth to ensure the highest level of compliance from women, as well as men.

There are four characteristics of gender roles that ideologically support the overarching structures of sexism, heterosexism, and transgender oppression, and the intersections between them. The first is that while these gender roles are social constructions (something created by the dominant social identity group, i.e. men, and then repeatedly reinforced through socialization so they seem real), the story we are actually told in this society is that masculinity and femininity are biological instead of socially constructed, natural rather than cultural, inherent to being a man or a woman and not learned behaviors. Thus, even though there is no causal relationship between one’s biology and one’s gender identity, the instilling of these gender roles and rules in us from the moment we are born makes it appear as if there is, thereby implying that we are physiologically marked with these gender roles from birth and they cannot be changed. As a result, the sexist dynamics inherent in these socially constructed gender roles (e.g. women are