Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice for corresponding teaching materials.

Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice for corresponding teaching materials.

Permalink:

In early 2012, as the election year continued to pick up steam, Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC asked a similar question: “Who would have thought in 2012 that contraception would be a matter of debate again?” (Harris-Perry, February 21, 2012). Who indeed. And yet, the use of women’s legal rights, bodies, and overall role in society as a battleground for the 2012 political campaigns did just that. Were this the seventeenth century, the absolute control of women legally, eco- nomically, and physically in the name of politics and nation building would be commonplace and go unquestioned. Over the last century, however, women have steadily gained myriad rights regarding the control of their lives and bodies (e.g. Roe v. Wade in 1973), making the current encroachments on those rights more obviously problematic. Specifically, in the name of political expediency and the (re)assertion of male power, we are again seeing efforts to control women’s legal rights (i.e. diluting national laws like the Violence Against Women Act), economic rights (popular demands that women leave the workplace so unemployed men can have their jobs), and bodies (decreasing contraception access for many women). Citing these examples and more, many observers described the tone regarding women in the 2012 election campaigns as single-mindedly regressive, and it was; not only in how it attacked women’s rights, but in how it deeply wove class, race, and Christian hegemony into the efforts to do so. For example, the political lauding of the cult of (compulsory) motherhood and the assertion that to stay home and raise children is the highest and only calling a woman can have was not only sexist, but also deeply rooted in the class privilege of being able to afford to stay home, a racial history of white

338 SEXISM

we hear or express sexist jokes and other forms of misogyny we may not recognize it , and even if we do, say nothing rather than risk other people th inking we’re “too sensit ive” or, especially in the case of men, “not one of the guys . ” In either case, we are involved, if only by our silence.

T h e symbols and ideas that make up patr iarchal culture are important to understand because they have such power fu l effects on the structure of social life. B y “s t ructure , ” I mean the ways that gender privilege and oppression are organized through social relation- ships and unequal distributions of rewards, opportunities, and resources. T h i s appears in countless patterns of everyday hfe i n family and w o r k , religion and politics, community and education. It is found in family divisions of labor that exempt fathers f rom most domestic w o r k even when both parents w o r k outside the home, and in the concentration of w o m e n in lower- level pink-col lar jobs and male predominance almost everywhere else. I t is in the unequal distribution of income and al l that goes wi th it, f rom access to health care to the availability of leisure time. I t is in patterns of male violence and harassment that can turn a simple w a l k in the park or a typical day at w o r k or a lovers ‘ quarrel into a life-threatening nightmare. Adore than anything, the structure of patriarchy is found in the unequal distribution of power that makes oppression possible, in patterns of male dominance in every facet of human life, f rom everyday conversation to global politics. By its nature, patriarchy puts issues of power, dominance, and control at the center of human existence, not only in relationships between men and w o m e n , but among men as they compete and struggle to gain status, maintain control , and protect themselves f r o m what other men might do to them.

THE SYSTEM IN US IN THE SYSTEM

One of the most diff icult things to accept about patriarchy is that we ‘ re involved in it , w h i c h means we ‘ re also involved i n its consequences. T h i s is especially hard for men w h o refuse to believe they benefit f r o m women ‘s oppression, because they can’t see h o w this could happen without their being personally oppressive in their intentions, feelings, and behavior. For many men, being told they’re involved in oppression can only mean they are oppressive.

A common defense against this is to attribute everything to “society” as something external and autonomous, w i t h wants , needs, interests, and the power to control people by making them into one sort of person or another. . . .

Societies don’t exist wi thout people participating in them, w h i c h means that we can’t understand patriarchy unless w e also ask h o w people are connected to it and h o w this connection varies, depending on social characteristics such as race, gender, ethnicity, age, and class. . . .

F r o m this perspective, who we and other people think we are has a lot to do w i t h where w e are in relation to social systems and al l the positions that people occupy. We w o u l d n ‘ t exist as social beings if it weren ‘ t for our participation in one social system or another. I t ‘s hard to imagine just w h o we ‘d be and what our existence w o u l d consist of if we took away al l of our connections to the symbols, ideas, and relationships that make up social systems. . . .

I n this sense, l ike a l l social systems, patr iarchy exists only through people’s l ives. T h r o u g h this, patr iarchy ‘s various aspects are there for us to see over and over again. T h i s has two important implicat ions for how we understand patriarchy. F i r s t , to some extent people experience patr iarchy as ex terna l to them; but this doesn’t mean that it ‘s

336 I SEXISM

people w h o believe i n A l l a h are I s lam or Canadians are Canada. Patriarchy is a k i n d of society organized around certain kinds of social relationships and ideas. A s individuals , we participate i n it. Paradoxically, our participation both shapes our lives and gives us the opportunity to be part of changing or perpetuating it. But we are not it, w h i c h means that patriarchy can exist wi thout men having “oppressive personalit ies” or actively conspiring w i t h one another to defend male privilege. To demonstrate that gender oppression exists, we don’t have to show that m e n are vi l la ins , that w o m e n are good-hearted vict ims, that w o m e n don’t participate in their o w n oppression, or that men never oppose it. I f a society is oppressive, then people w h o grow up and live in it w i l l tend to accept, identify w i t h , and participate in it as ” n o r m a l ” and unremarkable l i fe. Tha t ‘ s the path of least resistance i n any system. It ‘s hard not to fo l low it , given h o w we depend on society and its rewards and punishments that hinge on going along w i t h the status quo. W h e n oppression is w o v e n into the fabric of everyday life, we don’t need to go out of our way to be overly oppressive in order for an oppressive system to produce oppressive consequences. A s the saying goes, what evil requires is s imply that ordinary people do nothing.

T h e crucial thing to understand about patriarchy or any other k i n d of social system is that it ‘s something people participate i n . I t ‘s an arrangement of shared understandings and relationships that connect people to one another and something larger than themselves. . . .

PATRIARCHY

T h e key to understanding any system is to identify its various parts and h o w they’re arranged to f o r m a whole . . . . Patr iarchy’s defining elements are its male-dominated, male- identif ied, and male-centered character, but this is just the beginning. A t its core, patriarchy is a set of symbols and ideas that make up a culture embodied by everything from the content of everyday conversation to literature and f i l m . Patriarchal culture includes ideas about the nature of things, including men, w o m e n , and humanity, w i t h manhood and masculinity most closely associated w i t h being human and womanhood and femininity relegated to the marginal position of “other . ” It ‘s about h o w social life is and how it’s sup- posed to be; about what ‘s expected of people and about how they feel. I t ‘s about standards of feminine beauty and masculine toughness, images of feminine vulnerabihty and mascu- line protectiveness, of older men coupled w i t h young w o m e n , of elderly w o m e n alone. I t ‘s about defining w o m e n and men as opposites, about the “naturalness” of male aggression, competit ion, and dominance and of female caring, cooperation, and subordination. It ‘s about the valuing of masculinity and maleness and the devaluing of femininity and female- ness. It ‘s about the pr imary importance of a husband’s career and the secondary status of a wi fe ‘ s , about child care as a pr ior i ty in women’s lives and its secondary importance in men’s . It ‘s about the social acceptability of anget, rage, and toughness i n men but not in w o m e n , and of eating, tenderness, and vulnerabil i ty in w o m e n but not in men.

Above a l l , patriarchal culture is about the core value of control and domination in almost every area of human existence. F r o m the expression of emotion to economics to the natural environment, gaining and exercising control is a continuing goal of great importance. Because of this, the concept of power takes on a narrow definition in terms of “power over “—the ability to control others, events, resources, or oneself i n spite of resistance—rather than alternatives such as the ability to cooperate w i t h others, to give freely of oneself, or to feel and act in harmony w i t h nature. To have power over and to be prepared to use it are defined cultural ly as good and desirable (and characteristically

334 I SEXISM

on I t—b u t it is not true, that is, it does not accurately describe their condit ion. I n contrast to women ‘s lives, men’s hves are structured around relationships of power and men’s dif- ferential access to power, as w e l l as the differential access to that powet of men as a group. O u r imperfect analysis of our o w n situation leads us to believe that we men need more power, rather than leading us to support feminists ‘ efforts to rearrange power relationships along more equitable lines.

W h y , then, do A m e t i c a n men fee! so powerless? Part of the answer is because we ‘ve constructed the rules of manhood so that only the tiniest fract ion of men come to beUeve that they are the biggest of wheels, the sturdiest of oaks, the most v irulent repudiators of femininity, the most daring and aggressive. We’ve managed to disempower the overwhelm- ing majority of A m e r i c a n men by other means—such as discriminating on the basis of race, class, ethnicity, age, or sexual preference.

Others still rehearse the poUtics of exclusion, as if by clearing away the playing field of secure gender identity of any that we deem less than m a n l y — w o m e n , gay men, nonnative- born men, men of color—middle-class, straight, white men can reground their sense of themselves without those haunting fears and that deep shame that they are unmanly and w i l l be exposed by other men. T h i s is the manhood of racism, of sexism, of homophobia. It is the manhood that is so chronically insecure that it trembles at the idea of Ufting the ban on gays in the mihtary, that is so threatened by women i n the workplace that women become the targets of sexual harassment, that is so deeply frightened of equalit)’ that it must ensure that the playing field of male competition remains stacked against all newcomers to the game.

E x c l u s i o n and escape have been the dominant methods A m e r i c a n men have used to keep their fears of humil ia t ion at bay. T h e fear of emasculation by other men, of being humil iated, of being seen as a sissy, is the leitmotif in my reading of the history of Amer ican manhood. Mascul in i ty has become a relentless test by w h i c h we prove to other men, to w o m e n , and ultimately to ourselves, that we have successfully mastered the part. T h e restlessness that men feel today is nothing new in Amer ican history; we have been anxious and restless for almost two centuries. Nei ther exclusion nor escape has ever brought us the relief we’ve sought, and there is no reason to think that either w i l l solve our problems now. Peace of m i n d , relief f r o m gender struggle, w i l l come only f r o m a pohtics of inclusion, not exclusion, f rom standing up for equality and justice, and not by running away.

62

Patriarchy, the System

An It, Not a He, a Them, Or an Us

Allan G. Johnson

” W h e n you say patr iarchy,” a man complained f rom the rear of the audience, ” I k n o w w h a t you really m e a n — m e ! ” A lot of people hear ” m e n ” whenever someone says “patr iarchy,” so that crit icism of gender oppression is taken to mean that ai l men—each and every one

330 I SEXISM

D a v i d Leverei iz argues that “ideologies of manhood have functioned pr imar i ly in relation to the gaze of male peers and male authority.” T h i n k of h o w men boast to one another of their accomplishments—from their latest sexual conquest to the size of the fish they caught—and h o w w e constandy parade the markers of manhood—weal th , power, status, sexy w o m e n — i n front of other men, desperate for their approval .

T h a t men prove their manhood in the eyes of other men is both a consequence of sexism and one of its chief props. ” W o m e n have, in men’s minds , such a low place on the social ladder of this country that it’s useless to define yourself in terms of a w o m a n , ” noted playwright D a v i d Mamet . ” W h a t men need is men’s a p p r o v a l . ” W o m e n become a k i n d of currency that men use to improve their ranking on the masculine social scale. ( E v e n those moments of heroic conquest of w o m e n carry, I believe, a current of homosocial evalua- tion.) Mascul in i ty is a homosocial enactment. We test ourselves, perform heroic feats, take enormous risks, al l because we want other men to grant us our manhood.

Mascul in i ty as a homosocial enactment is fraught w i t h danger, w i t h the risk of fai lure , and w i t h intense relentless competit ion. ” E v e r y man you meet has a rating or an estimate of himself w h i c h he never loses or forgets,” wrote Kenneth Wayne in his popular turn- of-the-century advice book. ” A man has his o w n rating, and instantly he lays it alongside of the other m a n . ” Almost a century later, another man remarked to psychologist Sam Osherson that ” [b]y the time you’re an adult, it’s easy to think you’re always in competi- t ion w i t h men, for the attention of w o m e n , in sports, at w o r k . ”

MASCULINITY AS HOMOPHOBIA

H o m o p h o b i a is a central organizing principle of our cultural definit ion of manhood. H o m o p h o b i a is more than the i rrat ional fear of gay men, more than the fear that we might be perceived as gay. ” T h e w o r d ‘faggot’ has nothing to do w i t h homosexual experience or even w i t h fears of homosexuals , ” writes D a v i d Leverenz . ” I t comes out of the depths of manhood: a label of ultimate contempt for anyone w h o seems sissy, untough, u n c o o l . ” H o m o p h o b i a is the fear that other men w i l l unmask us, emasculate us, reveal to us and the w o r l d that we do not measure up, that we are not real men. We are afraid to let other men see that fear. Fear makes us ashamed, because the recognition of fear in ourselves is proof to ourselves that we are not as manly as we pretend, that we are, l ike the young man i n a poem by Yeats, “one that ruffles in a manly pose for al l his t imid heart . ” O u r fear is the fear of humil ia t ion. We are ashamed to be afraid.

Shame leads to silence—the silences that keep other people believing that we actu- ally approve of the things that are done to w o m e n , to minorit ies , to gays and lesbians in our culture. T h e frightened silence as we scurry past a w o m a n being hassled by men on the street. T h a t furtive silence w h e n men make sexist or racist jokes in a bar. T h a t c lammy-handed silence w h e n guys in the office make gay-bashing jokes. O u r fears are the sources of our silences, and men’s silence is what keeps the system running. T h i s might help to expla in w h y w o m e n often compla in that their male friends or partners are often so understanding w h e n they are alone and yet laugh at sexist jokes or even make those jokes themselves w h e n they are out w i t h a group.

T h e fear of being seen as a sissy dominates the cultural definitions of manhood. It starts so early. ” B o y s among boys are ashamed to be unmanly , ” wrote one educator in 1 8 7 1 . I have a standing bet w i t h a fr iend that I can w a l k onto any playground in Amer ica where 6-year-old boys are happily playing and by asking one question, I can provoke a fight. T h a t question is simple: ” W h o ‘ s a sissy around here?” Once posed, the challenge is made. One

SEXISM

is A , the other is N o t – A ; gender boundaries tell the individual w h o is like h i m or her and all the rest are unl ike . F r o m society’s point of view, however, one gender is usually the touchstone, the normal , the dominant, and the other is different, deviant, and subordinate. I n Western society, ” m a n ” is A , ” w o – m a n ” is N o t – A . (Consider what a society w o u l d be l ike where w o m a n was A and m a n N o t – A . ) . . . T h e dominant categories are the hegemonic ideals, taken so for granted as the way things should be that, . . . [t]he characteristics of these categories define the Other as that w h i c h lacks the valuable qualities the dominants exhibit .

Societies vary i n the extent of the inequality in social status of their w o m e n and men members, but where there is inequality, the status ” w o m a n ” (and its attendant behavior and role allocations) is usually held in lesser esteem than the status ” m a n . ” Since gender is also intertwined w i t h a societ)”s other constructed statuses of differential evaluation—race, rel igion, occupation, class, country of origin, and so o n — m e n and w o m e n members of the favored groups command more power, more prestige, and more property than the mem- bers of the disfavored groups. W i t h i n many social groups, however, men are advantaged over w o m e n . T h e more economic resources, such as education and job opportunities, are available to a group, the more they tend to be monopolized by men. I n poorer groups that have few resources (such as working-class Afr i can Americans in the United States), women and men are more nearly equal, and the w o m e n may even outstrip the men in education and occupational status.

As a structure, gender divides w o r k in the home and in economic production, legiti- mates those i n authority, and organizes sexuality and emotional life. As pr imary parents, w o m e n significandy influence children’s psychological development and emotional attach- ments, in the process reproducing gender. Emergent sexuality is shaped by heterosexual , homosexual , bisexual , and sadomasochistic patterns that are gendered—different for girls and boys, and for w o m e n and men—so that sexual statuses reflect gender statuses.

W h e n gender is a major component of structured inequality, the devalued genders have less power, prestige, and economic rewards than the valued genders. I n countries that dis- courage gender discr iminat ion, many major roles are still gendered; w o m e n sti l l do most of the domestic labor and chi ld rearing, even whi le doing full – t ime paid w o r k ; w o m e n and men are segregated on the job and each does w o r k considered “appropr ia te” ; women’s w o r k is usually paid less than men’s w o r k . M e n dominate the positions of authority and leadership in government, the military, and the law; cultural productions, religions, and sports reflect men’s interests. . . .

Gender inequaUty—the devaluation of ” w o m e n ” and the social domination of ” m e n ” — has social functions and a social history. I t is not the result of sex, procreation, physiology, anatomy, hormones, or genetic predispositions. I t is produced and maintained by iden- tifiable social processes and built into the general social structure and indiv idual identi- ties deliberately and purposefully. T h e social order as we k n o w it in Western societies is organized around racial , ethnic, class, and gender inequality. I contend, therefore, that the continuing purpose of gender as a modern social institution is to construct w o m e n as a group to be the subordinates of men as a group. T h e hfe of everyone placed in the status ” w o m a n ” is “night to his day—that has forever been the fantasy. B lack to his whi te . Shut out of his system’s space, she is the repressed that ensures the system’s funct ioning . ”

T h e r e is no core or bedrock human nature below these endlessly looping processes of the social production of sex and gender, self and other, identity and psyche, each of w h i c h is a ” complex cultural construct ion.” For humans, the social is the natural. Therefore , ” i n its feminist senses, gender cannot mean simply the cultural appropriat ion of biological sexual difference. Sexual difference is itself a fundamental—and scientifically

326 1 SEXISM

rejecting what is not appropriate. I f their social categories are highly valued, they value themselves highly; i f their social categories are l o w status, they lose self-esteem. M a n y feminist parents w h o want to raise androgynous chi ldren soon lose their chi ldren to the pull of gendered norms. M y son attended a carefully nonsexist elementary school, w h i c h didn’ t even have girls ‘ and boys’ bathrooms. “When he was seven or eight years o ld , I attended a class play about “squares” and “c i rc les ” and their need for each other and noticed that all the gir l squares and circles wore makeup, but none of the boy squares and circles d id . I asked the teacher about it after the play, and she said, “Bobby said he was not going to wear makeup, and he is a power fu l ch i ld , so none of the boys w o u l d either.” I n a long discussion about conformity, my son confronted me w i t h the question of w h o the conformists were , the boys w h o fol lowed their leader or the girls w h o listened to the w o m a n teacher. In actualit}’, they both were , because they both fo l lowed same-gender lead- ers and acted i n gender-appropriate ways . (Actors may wear makeup, but real boys don’t . )

For human beings there is no essential femaleness or maleness, femininity or masculin- ity, w o m a n h o o d or manhood, but once gender is ascribed, the social order constructs and holds individuals to strongly gendered norms and expectations. Individuals may vary on many of the components of gender and may shift genders temporarily or permanently, but they must fit into the l imited number of gender statuses their society recognizes. I n the process, they te-create their society’s version of women and men: ” I f we do gender appropriately, we simultaneously sustain, reproduce, and render legitimate the institu- tional arrangements. . . . I f we fail to do gender appropriately, we as individuals—not the insti tutional arrangements—may be called to account (for our character, motives, and predisposit ions)” (West and Z i m m e r m a n 1987) .

T h e gendered practices of everyday life reproduce a society’s v i e w of how w o m e n and men should act. Gendered social arrangements are justified by religion and cultural produc- tions and backed by law, but the most power fu l means of sustaining the moral hegemony of the dominant gender ideology is that the process is made invisible ; any possible alternatives are vir tual ly unthinkable.

FOR SOCIETY, GENDER MEANS DIFFERENCE

T h e pervasiveness of gender as a w a y of structuring social life demands that gender sta- tuses be clearly differentiated. Varied talents, sexual preferences, identities, personahties, interests, and ways of interacting fragment the individual ‘ s bodily and social experiences. Nonetheless, these are organized i n Western cultures into two and only two socially and legally recognized gender statuses, ” m a n ” and ” w o m a n . ” I n the social construction of gender, it does not matter what men and w o m e n actually do; it does not even matter if they do exactly the same thing. T h e social institution of gender insists only that what they do is perceived as different.

I f men and women are doing the same tasks, they are usually spatially segregated to maintain gender separation, and often the tasks are given different job tides as w e l l , such as executive secretary and administrative assistant. I f the differences between w o m e n and men begin to blur, society’s “sameness taboo” goes into action. A t a rock and rol l dance at West Point in 1976, the year w o m e n were admitted to the prestigious mil i tary academy for the first time, the school’s administrators “were reportedly perturbed by the sight of mirror- image couples dancing in short hair and dress gray trousers,” and a rule was estab- lished that women cadets could dance at these events only if they wore skirts. W o m e n recruits in the U . S . M a r i n e Corps are required to wear makeup—at a m i n i m u m , lipstick and eye shadow—and they have to take classes in makeup, hair care, poise, and etiquette.

I SEXISM

a tiny baby i n a carrier on his chest. Seeing men taking care of small chi ldren in pubhc is increasingly common—at least in N e w Y o r k City. But both men were quite obviously stared at—and smiled at, approvingly. Everyone was doing gender—the men w h o were changing the role of fathers and the other passengers, w h o were applauding them silently. But there was more gendering going on that probably fewer people noticed. T h e baby was wear ing a whi te crocheted cap and white clothes. You couldn’t tell if it was a boy or a gir l . T h e child in the stroller was wear ing a dark blue T-shir t and dark pr int pants. A s they started to leave the train, the father put a Yankee baseball cap on the child’s head. A h , a boy, I thought. T h e n I noticed the gleam of t iny earrings in the child’s ears, and as they got off, I saw the little f lowered sneakers and lace-trimmed socks. N o t a boy after a l l . Gender done.

Gender is such a famihar part of daily life that it usually takes a dehberate disruption of our expectations of h o w w o m e n and men are supposed to act to pay attention to how it is produced. Gender signs and signals are so ubiquitous that we usually fa i l to note t h e m — unless they are missing or ambiguous. T h e n we are uncomfortable unti l we have success- ful ly placed the other person in a gender status; otherwise, we feel socially dislocated. . . .

For the indiv idual , gender construction starts w i t h assignment to a sex category on the basis of what the genitaha look like at bir th. T h e n babies are dressed or adorned i n a w a y that displays the category because parents don’t w a n t to be constantly asked whether their baby is a gir l or a boy. A sex category becomes a gender status through naming, dress, and the use of other gender markers . Once a child’s gender is evident, others treat those i n one gender differently f r o m those i n the other, and the chi ldren respond to the different treatment by feeling different and behaving differently. A s soon as they can talk, they start to refer to themselves as members of their gender. Sex doesn’t come into play again unt i l puberty, but by that time, sexual feehngs and desires and practices have been shaped by gendered norms and expectations. Adolescent boys and girls approach and avoid each other in an elaborately scripted and gendered mating dance. Parenting is gendered, w i t h different expectations for mothers and for fathers, and people of different genders w o r k at different kinds of jobs. T h e w o r k adults do as mothers and fathers and as low-level workers and high-level bosses, shapes women’s and men’s life experiences, and these experiences produce different feelings, consciousness, relationships, s k i l l s — w a y s of being that we call feminine or mascuhne. A l l of these processes constitute the social construction of gender.

Gendered roles change—today fathers are taking care of little chi ldren, girls and boys are wear ing unisex clothing and getting the same education, w o m e n and men are w o r k i n g at the same jobs. Although many tradit ional social groups are quite strict about maintaining gender differences, in other social groups they seem to be blurr ing. T h e n w h y the one-year- old’s earrings? W h y is it st i l l so important to mark a chi ld as a gir l or a^boy, to make sure she is not taken for a boy or he for a girl? W h a t w o u l d happen if they were? T h e y w o u l d , quite literally, have changed places in their social w o r l d .

To explain w h y gendering is done from birth, constantly and by everyone, we have to look not only at the way individuals expetience gender but at gender as a social institu- t ion. A s a social institution, gender is one of the major ways that human beings organize their l ives. H u m a n society depends on a predictable division of labor, a designated alloca- tion of scarce goods, assigned responsibihty for children and others w h o cannot care for themselves, c o m m o n values and their systematic transmission to new members, legitimate leadership, music , art, stories, games, and other symbolic productions. One w a y of choos- ing people for the different tasks of society is on the basis of their talents, motivations, and competence—their demonstrated achievements. T h e other w a y is on the basis of gender, race, ethnicity—ascribed membership in a category of people. . . .

Western society’s values legitimate gendering by c la iming that it all comes f rom physiol – ogy—female and male procreative differences. But gender and sex are not equivalent, and gender as a social construction does not f l o w automatically f r o m genitalia and reproductive

322 I SEXISM

internalized oppression. Her article calls this out in simple but powerful ways, and while it does not blame women for sexism, it does demand that women take responsibility for the internaliza- tion of negative messages and transform these debilitating ideas into sources of power.

As stated above, one of the most egregious mistakes of both waves of the women’s move- ment was the racist lack of attention to the needs and voices of women of color. For example, while the brief statement from the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (selection 72) helps to counter the historic mistake of white feminists assuming that what works for white, middle-class women’s health works for all women, it is but one small step in broadening the women’s health agenda to truly include all women. Similarly, the Hurdis reading (selection 73) discusses the critical importance of including the voices of women of color in today’s third-wave feminism, while the Russo and Spatz reading (selection 74) helps white women remember not to be seduced by the apparent political expediency of white privilege and class privilege to advance their own agenda at the expense of women of color and working-class women. Similarly, Winona LaDuke (selection 75) and Dr. Wangari Maathai (selection 76) both offer lasting insight into the overall mindset and framework necessary to end the oppression of women and create social change from the ground up all over the world.

All of the readings in this section are meant to show the real-life complexity of addressing the oppression of women and girls. More and more the discussion of what has traditionally been known as “sexism” has broadened and deepened into a complicated nexus of gender, race, class, and sexual orientation axes of identity compounded by the structurally oppressive realities of age and ability. This is not to say that the history of feminist thought is outdated or should be dismissed in any way, but to simply note that knowledge of sexism must be complicated, as it was by radical feminists of color, and then built upon even further by postmodern theory, trans theory, critical race theory, and of course social justice theory. Thus for there be an effective and sustained movement to end the sexism, there must be an understanding of how the issues in this section intersect with all other issues of oppression. To that end the reader should also explore selections from other sections in this book such as the U.S. Department of State, Romero and Morgenson selections (32, 34, and 38) located in the “Classism” section which discuss class and gender intersectionality, burdensome debt, and human (often women for sex) trafficking. In the section on racism, the Chung, Fayad, Castaneda, and Smith readings (selections 16,18, 23, and 24) highlight the role of heteropatriarchy in the maintenance of racism, the connections between sexism and racism, and ways to cross-culturally communicate about issues of race. Similarly, in the section on ableism, the Colligan reading (selection 100) explains why the intersexed should not be “fixed” and is key to understanding that biological sex exists on a continuum and thus supports the deconstruction of the “essentialist” position regarding gender. And, of course, the readings of the “Heterosexism” and “Transgender Oppression” sections are vital in fully under- standing the overlapping complexity and mutually reinforcing structures of oppression among these three forms of oppression.

SUMMARY

In conclusion, I would like to underscore that this section offers only a sampling of issues and ideas for readers to consider regarding the very complex and multifaceted issue of the oppression of women and girls in this society. As mentioned above, there is no single voice for “women’s issues” and therefore I strongly encourage the use of the supplemental materials from the sec- tion website as well as the intersectional guide in the front of this book as tools to gain a more comprehensive view of sexism in the United States. On the website you will find additional book and article references, specific articles themselves (e.g. the oft-used “The ‘Rape’ of Mr. Smith”),

320 I SEXISM

to this society socially, economically, and physically, it should be noted that the severity of the violence speaks volumes about the critical importance of the maintenance of these gender roles as the ideological foundation of sexism. Why else would there be such extreme enforcement of them? Clearly there is much at stake for the system of gender oppression in their furtherance, and thus the steady companion of these gender roles is the incessant use of violence individu- ally, culturally, and institutionally to protect them.

Thankfully, gender identity can be thought of in ways that are more flexible than gender roles. Gender identity arises from an inner, self-reflective location and manifests as a person’s more authentic gendered self as a woman, man, or transgendered person. While gender roles exist in relation to each other within a binary, gender identity exists along a continuum and has a range of expressions. The section on “Transgender Oppression” (Section 7) more thoroughly explains the concept of gender identity and its range of expressions, and is a critical companion section for fully understanding sexism in this society. Gender roles and identity are experienced by others through their “expression” or “presentation.” A person’s expression or presentation of a gender role is based on the dichotomous categories of what “man” and “woman” should look, act, and feel like, whereas the expression or presentation of a person’s gender identity exists within a broader and more fluid expression that more accords with the complexity of gender. To present or express one’s gender on the basis of accepted gender roles usually garners acceptance and approval from individuals and institutions. On the other hand, gender expression that does not conform to the dominant power structure’s ideals, while being more true to the individual’s felt sense of self, often results in disapproval, marginalization, and violence from the larger society.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL AND SEXISM

Understanding that socially constructed gender roles are not natural, are created as an extreme binary, and are violently enforced, let’s discuss how that serves as the foundation of sexism. Simply put, all forms of oppression require a dichotomous relationship between dominant and subordinate groups because it is much easier to justify, and thus maintain, an unequal alloca- tion of power and resources when two social identity groups (within the same axis of identity) are positioned as diametrically opposed to each other as possible (see selections 4 and 5). Therefore, these roles form the basis for the structure of oppression of women and girls, or sexism, in our society. In this reader’s companion book, Teaciiing for Diversity and Social Justice (second edition), Botkin, Jones and Kachwaha define sexism as “a system of advantages that serves to privilege men, subordinate women, denigrate women-identified values and practices, enforce male dominance and control, and reinforce norms of masculinity that are dehumanizing and damaging to men” (2007, p. 174). Allan Johnson (selections 3 and 62) further advances our understanding of sexism by describing patriarchy as the system and ideology that supports the dominance of men and the oppression of women on all levels of society.

The bell hooks reading (selection 63) offers a different take on understanding sexism by explaining what feminism is. In the words of a favorite bumper sticker, “feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” Contrary to popular backlash rhetoric, feminism is not about hating men, but it does unapologetically require an end to the domination of women by men. While feminism certainly has a range of theoretical underpinnings from liberal to Marxist to environmental, a common element among them is the need to dismantle the patriarchal power structures that serve to subordinate women and transgender folks and unfairly advantage men in every aspect of society. Because of the connections noted among sexism, heterosexism, and transgender oppression, feminism also seeks an end to gender binaries and heteronormative societal structures.