Sociology Lens

www.grassrootsfeminism.net

It was recently announced that the radical feminist magazine Spare Rib is to be re-launched in the UK, with an online presence as soon as next month and a print version available in the Autumn. Spare Rib first launched in 1972 out of the 1960s feminist movement and made a point of covering taboo and controversial issues such as domestic violence, lesbianism and birth control, amongst many others. This re-launch has been greeted by many (myself included) with a hearty cheer, and has raised many questions with it. If this launch is successful, does this suggest a mainstream acceptance for feminist thought? Perhaps it will make feminism more accessible to a generation of young women, something it sorely needs. Either way, the re-launch indicates two key phenomena: a rejection of women’s magazines, and the increased visibility, acceptance and impact of feminist writing. (more…)

Source: jezebel.com

An exciting new journal is slated for release next year—Routledge’s Porn Studies. The journal, the first of its kind, will focus explicitly on erotic and pornographic materials, as well as sex work generally. As its call for papers makes clear, it aims to include interdisciplinary, intersectional, and global analyses. Such a journal is a brave endeavor because the topic of pornography is an incredibly volatile one in academic and activist worlds. The journal is still a year away from publication and has already sparked angry responses, highlighting an ongoing problem in approaches to pornography that will be the focus of my post. (more…)

Increasingly, a great deal of media coverage and public discussion focuses on the growing number of women in senior corporate positions. Women such as Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, and Marissa Mayer, CEO of Yahoo, have become renowned public figures whose success is held as an example of how far women have come in their struggle for gender equality. They are seen to have shattered the glass ceiling.

Whilst this success shouldn’t be belittled, there remain problems with the media’s portrayal of these senior women as well as the criticism of their decisions and practices that outpaces those directed at their male counterparts. The hyper-visibility of these women and the attention surrounding their success have created high (feminist) expectations and heavy criticism when they fall short. This raises the question: Why do we assume that as successful and powerful women, they stand for gender equality? Why do we imbue these women with role model status, and how helpful is it to do so? (more…)

Source: http://emanaliahmed91.blogspot.com

Sheryl Sandberg’s book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, has created quite the buzz in the media, drawing accolades and criticism from widespread analysts, academics, feminists, business people, journalists, etc. Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, contends that the norms of femininity prevent women from gaining success in the workplace. While insufficient work and family policies are obstacles for women, one major, often overlooked, barrier is the rigid boundaries of masculinity and femininity, which hinder men’s participation in family and relationships and women’s drive in the workplace. Sandberg encourages women to “lean in” to their own success, to work hard and to defy the norms that hold them back.

While some praise Sandberg’s strong business sense and work ethic, others criticize her claim that women are their own biggest obstacles to success in the workplace. As a sociologist and a feminist, I am skeptical about her assertion that women hinder their own progress. In addition to a cultural shift in ideas about women’s leadership and business skills, we need stronger work and family policies. However, I am intrigued by her claim that cultural norms about masculinity and femininity are a major part of individual work and family issues. This seems like an obvious claim, yet a hard problem to solve. How do we change cultural ideas about what men and women can and should achieve in the workplace and in the home? (more…)

A photo of my best friend and me

A recent article in Marie Claire magazine caught my eye. The title asks, “Are girlfriends the new husbands?” As the article explains, young adult women are increasingly turning to best friends for the kind of support that one might expect only from a romantic partner. As they choose to remain single later into life, women’s best friends become intimate partners (though not sexual ones). Cohabitation, “family” vacations, even some type of co-parenting between best friends is becoming more common. I should note, the article doesn’t discuss race, sexuality, class or any of the other intersecting social categories that affect women’s lives, so we cannot make sweeping generalizations, but among an abstract category of 20- to 30-something year old women, the nature of friendship appears to be changing. And I’d like to argue that this change is a good one. (more…)

Source: Feministing

This week, Stephanie Coontz contributed an opinion piece to the New York Times in honor of the 50^th anniversary of Betty Friedan’s, The Feminine Mystique. Coontz’s article, entitled “Why Gender Equality Stalled,” explores some of the structural and economic reasons hindering equality between men and women. The attitudes and beliefs of individuals are not to blame for the stalled gender revolution; instead, Coontz points to a failing economy and inadequate work-family policies as the major obstacles to gender equality.

Coontz relies on recent research which suggests that many men and women want egalitarian relationships. Specifically, a 2010 Pew Poll found that 72% of men and women think that marriages based on equality are the best. The implication of this research is most people start out with an egalitarian relationship as “Plan A.” If the conditions are right, most couples want to fulfill a utopian vision of gender equality in their interpersonal arrangements. However, as in most situations, “Plan A” rarely comes to fruition, especially under a set of constrained structural conditions. At some point, many people have to fall back on “Plan B,” a plan that involves more work for men and more family responsibilities for women.

Coontz suggests a few reasons to explain the prevalence of this less than egalitarian back up plan. She describes economic conditions in which men make more money than women and in which neither men nor women have adequate access to family leave. When men and women have few economic options, they return to a more traditional arrangement because it is the most lucrative and/or the most obvious choice. Ultimately, Coontz makes a strong argument for better family/work policies in order to create the conditions for gender equality

I think Coontz’s analysis is insightful. As a sociologist, I appreciate her emphasis on the many structural problems that prevent more gender equality between men and women. Importantly, she showcases the intersection of capitalism and patriarchy, highlighting the ways in which economic conditions uphold the patriarchal arrangements between men and women. We can’t expect a change in gender relations if our institutions do not reflect the goals of gender equality.

Yet, I am not convinced that these structural alterations are the only requirements necessary to produce the desired changes in gender relations at the individual level. Patriarchy has endured as a system of power not just because of social structures and institutions, but also because of cultural values and beliefs. While we have evidence to suggest that men and women want more egalitarian relationships, we also have evidence to suggest that cultural attitudes still reflect the belief that the household is women’s domain.

For example, when both men and women work, the bulk of the family and household responsibilities fall on the women. While this surely has something to do with economic conditions (for example, who can more easily leave the workplace without repercussions or significant loss of money), it also has something to do with the historical association of the household as the women’s domain.  This link between women and housework persists despite the many gains that women have made in the public sphere.

What I am suggesting is that we still have a ways to go with our cultural ideas about gender and family. Better social structures can help change these ideas, but can we think of others ways to disentangle women from the private sphere?

Suggested Readings:

Estes, Sarah Beth. 2011. “How Are Work-Family Policies Related to the Gendered Division of Labor?” Sociology Compass 5(3): 233-243.

Gerson, Kathleen. 2011. The Unfinished Revolution: Coming of Age in an Era of Gender, Work, and Family. New York: Oxford University Press.

Latshaw, Beth A. 2011. “The More Things Change, The More They Stay The Same? The Paradoxes of Men’s Unpaid Labor Since The Second Shift.” Sociology Compass 5(7): 653-665.

National Science Foundation. 2008. Chore Wars: Men, Women, and Housework

.

.

Source: NYC.gov (http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2012/pr013-12.shtml)

This past September, a new initiative went into effect in NYC. The initiative, called Latch On NYC, is intended to support women’s right to exclusively breastfeed their infants, and to support women in that endeavor. To achieve its goal, the project involves a breastfeeding awareness campaign, and some voluntary limitations on hospitals—specifically, they are to limit new mothers’ access to formula.  The initiative emerges out of an increased understanding of breastfeeding’s benefits to infant health, among other things.

Before continuing, I want to acknowledge the feminist quagmire that I’m entering by talking about breastfeeding. It is a contentious issue, and rightfully so. Even though feminist communities may not agree, at the core of their arguments is an acknowledgement of the social conditions that shape women’s experiences of child bearing and rearing, and the necessity of empowering women to live meaningful, autonomous lives. On the one hand, breastfeeding is often seen as part of a patriarchal essentialism that ties women inextricably and completely to their reproductive capacity (this article at Jezebel touches on this kind of feminist argument). Freeing women from these types of expectations (even from the requirement to be a mother) has been a primary goal of mainstream feminism in the US for decades. Formula gave many (predominantly white, middle class) women the ability to nurture careers and babies simultaneously. On the other hand, for many women, breastfeeding is a luxury that they have continually been denied. Working class and poor women, often women of color and immigrant women, face major barriers to breastfeeding—long work hours or multiple jobs, caretaking jobs that require women to be away from home for extended times, nutrient-poor food, health concerns and lack of access to medical consultation, etc. As documented by Dorothy Roberts and others, American society has long impeded the reproductive autonomy of women of color and poor women. And regardless of class status, the social stigma against public breastfeeding has, itself, been very restrictive.

Where exactly does Latch On NYC fit in this imbroglio? Well, it addresses some concerns and overlooks others. For example, the public awareness campaign—posters which feature angelic babes from varying racial/ethnic groups, and the slogan “Breast milk is best for your baby. It’s your right to feed your baby only breast milk and get the support you need”—may help dispel some of the social stigma. Additionally, by encouraging hospitals to develop better breastfeeding programs, we may be able to provide better information to new mothers, especially those who might not have had access to lactation consultants in the past.

But its emphasis on “you” individualizes what is actually a social (set of) problem(s). Like much of the public discourse on breastfeeding, the focus tends to be on women’s choices—in this case, to breastfeed or to use formula—and how their choices impact children. Sure, there is recognition that hospitals contribute in important ways to this choice, but the campaign still emphasizes the mother’s ultimate role in doing what is best for her baby. Just under the surface lurks a problematic sense of responsibility, a space to use guilt and blame to force a mother’s hand (see Sutherland, 2010 for more on mothering and guilt/shame). And more than that, this emphasis on the mother’s choice renders invisible those structural conditions that feminists from all backgrounds have questioned. The campaign does nothing to get employers to provide safe and hygienic spaces for women to feed or pump when necessary. It does not address the conditions poor women face—for example, it does nothing to longstanding structures of inequality (lower quality health care facilities in lower class neighborhoods, racial inequities in occupational and educational settings) that interfere with women’s reproductive and childrearing choices. Nor does it address the essentialist beliefs that many women want to reject.

To top it off, I don’t think that this campaign is even really about women and enabling their choices or rights. If the failure to address the many conditions that enable or constrain breastfeeding doesn’t convince you, perhaps the posters will. The priority, the person who matters, is the baby; the mom, the “you,” is implicit. Just like the famous fetal images that appeared in Time Magazine and were later appropriated by the anti-abortion movement, which seem to depict the fetus as independent from its mother’s body (see a short comment here), the breastfeeding mother and her body are all but erased by the Latch On campaign. I’m sure there are other ways to interpret the images—and I’m open to hearing them—but I am nervous about a campaign “for women” that seems so uninformed by feminist theory or the long, problematic history of infringements on women’s reproductive rights, and that literally leaves women out of the picture.

Further Reading

Roberts, Dorothy. 1999. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Vintage Books.

Sutherland, Jean-Anne. 2010. Mothering, Guilt and Shame. Sociology Compass 4(5):310-321.

Taylor, Tiffany. 2011. Re-examining Cultural Contradictions: Mothering Ideology and the Intersections of Class, Gender, and Race. Sociology Compass 5(10): 898-907.

Source: KTVU

Should public spaces, like libraries, ban pornography? This past week, the San Francisco Public Library made it easier for those who want to use the library’s online services to view illicit materials by installing shields on 18 of its public computers at the Civic Center branch. In the tradition of anti-censorship, the librarians refuse to censor websites, including those containing pornographic materials. Yet, they want to address concerns from some of their patrons who were troubled that they might accidentally see inappropriate content while visiting the library. A librarian reported to KTVU that they are “always looking for any kind of elegant solution that strikes a balance between the right to privacy and folks that want to use the library for any other intended purpose.” The privacy shields attempt to achieve this balance by protecting unwanted eyes from viewing others’ screens.

Not surprisingly, this new policy has stirred up controversy both in San Francisco and across the nation. Fox News reports that anti-pornography advocacy groups like Morality in Media think the shields will not be effective because patrons can simply look over the shoulder of someone seated at a computer and see what he/she is viewing. A spokesperson from Morality in Media further argued that access to pronographic content should be prohibited by common sense: “I mean porn in the library? There’s no place for that.”

Underlying some of these concerns about unwanted viewership is the fear that children might be exposed to sexually explicit materials. This San Diego blogger explains that libraries should be places for children to be children, arguing that we should “let children enjoy their childhoods by keeping open displays of porn and profanity as far away from them as possible.” Still, the anxiety over children and pornography is neither surprising nor new. As Feona Attwood (2011) describes in her Sociology Compass article, children’s sexuality, particularly around pornographic images, has a tendency to incite public discourse and disapproval.

Yet, I think these concerns will turn out to be unfounded. On a practical level, how many people will look over someone’s shoulder to view the content on their computer? However, my support for the privacy shields is grounded in my anti-censorship perspective. Like the San Francisco librarians, I do not support censorship, especially of pornographic materials. This stance is informed by my position as a feminist and a researcher of pornography.

Since the 1970s, many feminists have called for the eradication and censorship of pornography. Anti-pornography feminist organizations, like Women Against Pornography  in the 1970s and Stop Porn Culture today, argue that pornography is harmful for women: Pornography causes violence against females. The perceived (yet ultimately unfounded) connection between pornography and violence against women led to public initiatives like the Minneapolis Anti-Pornography Civil Rights Ordinance , which sought to hold pornographers civilly responsible for violence caused by pornography. Yet these initiatives were short sited and politically disingenuous, especially since empirical evidence has yet to show a significant link between violence and pornography consumption. They did lead, however, to unlikely – and unhealthy - alliances with political conservatives who shared only the concerns about pornography and not the larger feminist goals of gender equality. In places where anti-porn ordinances actually passed, like in Canada, the result was a disproportionate amount of censorship of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender erotic materials, showing that such political moves can be co-opted to further other forms of discrimination (see Segal in More Dirty Looks). Given this history, we have reason to be wary of censorship, especially since these types of initiatives can be so easily co-opted by those who ultimately may not share similar goals.

The San Francisco librarians are also wary of censorship, but they have found a solution that should appease most people. The privacy shields are a good middle ground. They allow people to access illicit materials without exposing others to the content. People can make the choice to view pornographic materials or they can avoid the 18 computers with the privacy shields. What do you think? Do you support the San Francisco library policy?

Suggested Readings:

Attwood, Feona. 2011. “The Paradigm Shift: Pornography Research, Sexualization, and Extreme Images.” Sociology Compass 5(1): 13-22.

Bronstein, Carolyn. 2011. Battling Pornography: The American Feminist Anti-Pornography Movement, 1976-1986. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ciclitira, Karen. 2004. “Pornography, Women and Feminism: Between Pleasure and Politics.” Sexualities 7(3): 281-301

Anita Sarkeesian. Source: Feminstfrequency.com

AUTHOR’S WARNING: This post, and especially the links leading from it, contains images and language that some readers may find offensive or unsettling.

Anita Sarkeesian is clever, eloquent, and seemingly fearless, but the recent fame she has achieved is not entirely pleasant. With a B.A. in communications from California State University, Northridge and a Master’s degree in social and political thought from York University, Sarkeesian is thoroughly knowledgeable and aptly qualified for her role as media critic and feminist activist. She uses her blog, Feminist Frequency, as one vehicle to further her research interests of “race, gender, sexuality, class and ability in popular culture.” Yet if you visited her (vandalized, and since fixed) Wikipedia page on June 5^th or 6^th, you would see her described not as a “feminist media critic,” but “an entitled nigger” (Sarkeesian is Armenian) and “hooker.” Comments on her YouTube channel and blog label her a “feminazi,” among other vitriolic insults.

It all began when Sarkeesian posted a video to Kickstarter, a site that crowdsources funding for creative projects. The project, “Tropes vs. Women in Video Games,” which is not yet completed, will “explore, analyze and deconstruct some of the most common tropes and stereotypes of female characters in games.” She asked for $6000 to fund the project; she received $158,922, threats of death and rape, and international media attention.

(more…)