gender studies

Like others who work in education, I was eager to see who President-elect Obama would select for his Education Secretary, and what that individual would represent. Obama’s selection of Chicago school superintendent Arne Duncan was announced yesterday.

I am heartened by the fact that Duncan represents a both-and approach to school reform, recognizing that both teacher improvement and social support for children outside of school will play a critical role in taking the US education system to a new level of excellence (we can hope, right?).

But I’m left with an important question: Will we see federal leadership for curricular reform? Peggy McIntosh recently pointed out to me that the central structure of the American education system (math, science, English, social studies, etc.) has remained unchanged since the 18th century. To be sure, approaches to these subjects are updated and the curriculum has certainly changed over time. Yet I’m also convinced from experience that the more things change the more they stay the same, and that the status quo reinforces traditional gender stereotypes (along with stereotypes about race and class).

For example, I noticed that my daughter’s kindergarten teacher had divided the girls’ and boys’ workbooks by color-coded baskets (red=girls, blue=boys: hm, at least it wasn’t pink!). I notice when I pick my daughter up from her after-school program that the room is frequently segregated by gender and toys (girls playing with dolls while boys play with Legos).

No doubt you’ve noticed that my examples point to classroom arrangements rather than classroom content, and you might think I’m being too nit-picky. After all, they’re just colored baskets, right? No way! I’m convinced that the classroom arrangements and curricular content reinforce each other (see my previous post where I mention a sex-stereotyping book series that my daughter discovered thanks to her first-grade teacher). It may be red baskets now, but when women still have to fight for equal pay for equal work (among other things), I want to be sure I’ve done my part to make a difference.

When I mentioned my concerns about the color-coded baskets during a conference, my daughter’s kindergarten teacher was shocked to think that she might be perpetuating gender stereotyping. She gave me examples of ways she challenged the students’ gender stereotyping in the classroom (talking about her own love of math, “requiring” girls to play in the block corner). The next morning the baskets were changed, with the kids finding their workbooks based upon the first initial of their last name.
I’m sure that won’t be the last conversation I have with a teacher about gender inequality in the classroom, but I hope that we can expect national leadership and fresh thinking about what goes on in the classroom. Any word on whether Duncan is a feminist? And GWP readers, have you taken any steps to make your sons’ or daughters’ classrooms more feminist learning environments?

-Allison Kimmich

As a sociologist, I like to break things down. So here we go.

We all know that women still earn less than men. Women’s wages are still a fraction of men’s—about 78 cents on the dollar—that’s just for full time workers. (For African American women, the number is 62 cents, Latinas, 53 cents.) Even when we “control for” education and experience, about 12% of the difference between men’s and women’s earnings cannot be explained. (Here at GWP we’ve discussed women in the failing economy and had dialogue about it, too.) So here’s the perpetual question: why.

Mind you, when we do “control for” education and experience, that means that we are not going to take into consideration the way that inequality influences who gets an education and what kind it is, nor the conditions under which one is able to ply her trade. We aren’t going to talk about how women’s and men’s so-called “choices” in the job market are conditioned on family leave policies that end up leaving women responsible for the 2nd shift at home more so than men. What I’m saying is that all those things aren’t choices at all.

But, I am also saying that inequality is complicated—and sneaky.

Let’s take the following puzzle. In 30 years of survey research, women report that they must work harder than men do. Why? A Gender & Society article by Elizabeth Gorman and Julie Kmec offers evidence for that sinking feeling that a lot of women have that “We (have to) try harder.”

Using surveys of working men and women in the United State and Britain, they found that women are 21-22% more likely than men to report that they work very hard at their jobs. That number is even higher when the kinds of jobs are taken into account, and it also is higher when women are working in fields dominated by other women. What is going on? The researchers investigated myriad explanations before determining what they see as the most likely explanation, namely, that “employers apply stricter performance standards to women than to men.”

How’d the researchers get there? Here are some questions they asked—and the answers they found:

Is it that men and women do different jobs? In other words, whose jobs are “harder”? They found that men’s and women’s jobs are different; though some jobs employ men and women equally (real estate, for example, is 50-50), other positions are dominated by either men (such as firefighters, 95-5) or women (like nursing, 10-90). In some ways men’s jobs are harder—and in other ways women’s jobs are harder. Women are more likely to be in part time jobs—these are more stressful and provide fewer rewards. Women are less likely to be in union jobs—and having a union makes your work life better, as reported in this and many other studies (including a forthcoming December 3, 2009 CEPR www.cepr.net paper on the topic). Men have jobs that are on average more physically strenuous, though jobs typically held by women in childcare and health care can also be demanding physically. The punch-line: when men and women hold the same job, women report work harder.

Do women feel like they are working harder because they are working a second shift—taking care of the family? It depends where you live. In England, the answer is no—being married or a parent doesn’t influence the way women report how hard they work. In the United States, the answer is yes—being married or having kids makes women report working harder. Why the difference? I suspect it is because the UK has better day-care and family leave supports, which mean parents (and in this case, especially mothers) don’t feel as stressed as they do in the US. It doesn’t explain everything, though.

Do women look to different social norms than men do—do women expect jobs not to be as hard? The authors examine this by looking at jobs mainly held by men versus jobs mainly held by women…and there were no differences in job effort. As they explain, “If gender-specific effort norms exist, we should see a greater difference … in highly gender-segregated jobs….” But they didn’t. So the answer to this question is no.

What about social desirability? Is there something that would lead women to inflate their responses and men to underestimate theirs in order to make an impression on the interviewers? Let’s say men and women are influenced by traditional ideas of “masculinity” and “femininity” when they answer questions about work. Does tradition say that men would act like they slack at their jobs? Or that they would seem more “masculine” if they talked about hard work? Does tradition suggest that women should act like they are very hard working in their field, or that they would be more feminine when their job was something lightly held, done with less intensity? I don’t know, and the researchers don’t know. But given that one could see it go either way, the notion that women had a special incentive to over-report, or men to underreport, doesn’t hold water.

So….what else could it be? After carefully examining a host of explanations for the fact that women report working harder than men report, and testing those explanations empirically, the researchers conclude: “The most plausible interpretation…is that employers impose higher performance standards on women than on men, even when men and women hold the same jobs.”

Inequality is complicated. It hasn’t disappeared. It isn’t a consequence of choices that men and women make any more than racial or ethnic inequality is a choice. But all these things can change. The first step? Employers need to recognize that they are at risk of pressing their bias in informal and unconscious ways.

-Virginia Rutter

Here are some quick hits of issues on the Sex and Sensibility front that caught my eye this week:

1. When Sex and Politics Meet: Amy Schalet, whom Virigina referenced in her post on Juno and teenage love back in January, is at it again with a brilliant article in the Washington Post. This time she has a question for Sarah Palin:

Should public school students be taught that contraception and condoms can prevent unintended pregnancy and disease?

But beyond this, she addresses how parents should address the question of sexuality with their teenage children. A question near and dear to my heart, Schalet makes a great historical argument on the changing role of sexuality in young people’s lives:

Simply put, the circumstances and aspirations of young people have changed since the 1950s, but our society’s narratives about the place of sexuality and the nature of relationships do not reflect these changes. And we pay a price for that inability to talk realistically about teenage sexuality and love.

Of course, with all the hoopla around Sarah Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy. In my opinion, this is a topic that is off-bounds, in my opinion, in any facile understanding of Palin’s VP suitability, but totally in-bounds in questions of conservatives’ and republicans’ generally obtuse and unrealistic (read: abstinence only) approach to teenage sexuality and public sexual health education. And Schalet makes a valid point on this topic:

The Palins, of course, deserve credit for their public embrace of their eldest daughter, which shows that, ideology notwithstanding, parents still love their daughters even if they have sex. If that embrace allays fears that prompt girls to keep sex a secret from their parents, then the Republican Party may have, inadvertently, facilitated the honest conversations we need to move beyond the myth-only approach to adolescent sexuality.

Given Palin’s especial appeal for the conservative Christian base, I wonder whether Palin speaking openly and warmly about her unmarried daughter’s pregnancy does indeed represent a turning-point in public discourse on the realities of teenage sex and love.

2. And about those realities of sex and love: Part of what I love about the feminist blogosphere community is that it acts in many ways like the consciousness-raising groups of the 70s, except with a very different purpose and outcome. Instead of sharing lived experiences that make women realize we all have similar ideas and problems, what often happens is that we realize the diversity of the female experience.

This happened recently in the comments section of a post Courtney did at Feministing on whether it is feminist to demand a female orgasm. The discussion was extremely interesting, and even got a bit brutal with arguments on what a woman should or should not demand from a sexual partner, and whether we should even attempt to write such rules. I’m starting off with my comment and then a few other representative comments:

more...

A few days ago, Roy Den Hollander, a lawyer who has filed a series of misogynist lawsuits, came out with this gem: he has filed an antifeminist suit against Columbia University for offering women’s studies classes, arguing that Columbia uses federal funding to support a “religionist belief system called feminism.” Now, part of me would like to dismiss this as the silly lawsuit it is, but sometimes such trivial things are important for us to reexamine the larger issues at stake.

As an undergraduate at Columbia, the debate on women’s studies and on adding women writers to such classes as Literature Humanities (the great literary works from Homer to Woolf– one of two female authors in the series) and Contemporary Civilization (the great philosophers– from Plato to, well, Woolf once again, this time the only female writer), reared its head from time to time. In navel-gazing online college forums, such as Columbia’s The Bwog, where commenters are anonymous and misogynist remarks rampant, the debate ran along these lines: someone starts off with a misogynist remark, someone asks why there aren’t men’s studies if there are women’s studies, someone else points out that the past two thousand years were “men’s studies,” someone else ignores this somewhat cogent remark to take the opportunity to make a few jokes about “boobs” and other funny female body parts, and someone else rounds it off by saying that it is all moot as humanities majors are generally wasting their money on unemployable skills.

High-minded stuff, for sure. The point being that even those who try to get past the boob jokes are unable to articulate the purpose of women’s studies beyond a call for balance. Which makes me think maybe the trivial isn’t so trivial. Maybe it’s time to rearticulate some of the values of women’s studies. But more importantly, perhaps it’s also time to make a wholesale change over to Gender Studies, which would undermine the whole of the lawyer’s invidious accusations. Because in the end, with courses not only called “Feminist Texts” but “Gender, Culture, and Human Rights,” and “Sexuality and the Law,” and an institute called the Institute for Research on Women and Gender (IRWAG), that’s what we, and Columbia, are really talking about.

Gender studies is very much the evolution of groundwork laid out by Women’s Studies. While we now recognize that inquiring into women’s role in society is imperative for an understanding of power dynamics and social relationships, we also recognize that it is just as important to understand how definitions of masculinity may shape men’s approach to women, each other, and themselves. Even more so, we see that there is difference within difference: that seeing the world from a gay male perspective overturns traditional notions of maleness. The theory behind women’s and gender studies goes further to a better understanding of class and race. We are no longer shackled with a simplistic grouping of “working class” as a faceless mass of singular experience, recognizing that women’s and men’s roles differ significantly within that group. We recognize that citizenship may also be defined along gendered lines (historically, women give their reproductive systems and males their lives to the state–but how does that definition change now that women are also on the battlefield?)

The intersection of race and class helps us to understand that women are not one “sisterhood” of victimhood throughout history, that women are actors in the past and today–both the perpetrators and the perpetrated–divided along lines of racial, ethnic, economic, sexual differences. Even at the seemingly strict dichotomous line of “body,” we can overturn a male/female divide by recognizing that women have experienced their bodies differently throughout history: those who have reproduced, those who haven’t, those who have undergone forced sterilization, and so on.

Ok, but enough of Gender Studies 101. What’s the practical application? Well, a little thinking about gender might lead you to question a few things. For instance: Single sex public education, Gender testing at the Olympics, The effect of birth control pills on your love life, and to bring us full circle: Diversity in academia.

But maybe I’m jumping the gun of the whole Gender Studies thing. Is there still a place for “Women’s Studies” (single gender) in today’s colleges?

–Kristen