sociologyprojectsblog

[sociologyprojectsblog]

Words Are Real Bodies Are Not

“In 1474 in Medieval Europe, a rooster (a male chicken) was put on trial for “the heinous and unnatural crime of laying an egg” - (Furman University, Sexual Identification Perceptions Vary By Culture)

In the last two decades, age old questions of “What is Sex? What Is Gender?” have become a more prominent topic of discussion in many more circles than before. In the wake of the legalization of same sex marriage or lack therof, and the LGBTQ+ community’s efforts to strive for basic rights these questions are seemingly a new kind of phenomenon. But to any individual who knows a bit of history, this phenomena is actually a long standing part of human existence. Gender and sexual identities organize our medical, legal, educational, and political system, not to mention shape how we understand our bodies and thus move through the world.

While the influence of sex and gender is at the center of existence, American history has seemingly washed away and covered up it’s cruiciality. It might be tempting to place the blame on a single group, a political party, government policy, good old fashioned human ignorance, but the reality is much larger and much older. Gender stereotyping exists constantly. It is present wether you identify as a cisgender straight white male, or a gender non-conforming pansexual Asian. The English language has accommodated many more terms and opportunities for change in the last decade, however the language itself continues to subtly perpetuate gender and sexual ridigity. In Laurel Richardson’s article “Gender Stereotyping in the English Language”, she takes a bit of a closer look into the stereotypes written into our very language.

Richardson begins with a grammatical and structural link to our society’s perception of gender, and it is in quite plain sight. She recalls the instances in which women are presented as an extension of man; “women” are a linguistic addition to the generic “man”. The English language is unique in its lack of division of male and female at its foundation.

But if we have made the proper accommodations in the language to include all kinds of humans, why bother?

While English-speaking Americans have come far in many circles, the language conjunctions and shortcomings still remain a part of curriculum and everyday life. Richardson believes, “language has tremendous power to shape attitudes and influence behavior” (Richardson, 445).

She continues to outline the many pertuations of gender stereotyping in the English language, from our use of slang to the formal “Mr. and Mrs.”. Much of this takes place in everyday casual language, however these shortcomings extend to the much more seemingly objective medical system. In an article “All Together Now: Intersex Infants and IGM”, author Riki Wilchins outlines how language has created a longstanding harmful structure in the medical field and intersex children. While these children are born naturally, our cultural and societal fear of anything beyond our enforced gender binary has created a method of categorizing these children immediately. Many arguments continue to claim that gender and sexual identities are taboo conversations for children, yet intersex children experience medical pathologizing at birth. Natural born gender non-conforming infants are assigned a gender based on hormonal, genital, and bodily characteristics and how we approach them culturally and societally.

Not so objective, right?

Wilchins makes the observation that, “Words are real, bodies are not…We don’t fit the words to the bodies; instead, it is the bodies that must fit the words” (Wilchins, 119). This is another method of forcing conformity, when the human body, mind, and spirit have never been cookie cutter.

So, with so many cultural, historical, and natural existences of genders outside the Western gender binary, it is important to acknowledge and change how we experience sex and gender in a society that has attempted to erase a facet of existence. This is not an easy change, but understanding how our language contributes to those hidden biases is just the beginning.

Sources:

Laura Hayes '16, Contributing Writer. “Sexual Identification Perceptions Vary by Culture.” Furman News, 27 Apr. 2016, https://news.furman.edu/2016/04/15/sexual-identification-perceptions-vary-by-culture/.

“The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race and Ethnicity, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexuality, and Disability by Karen Rosenblum.” Goodreads, Goodreads, 5 Feb. 2015, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26147592-the-meaning-of-difference.

Richardson, Laurel. Gender Stereotyping in the English Language. Goodreads, 5 Feb. 2015

Wilchins, Riki. All Together Now: Intersex Infants and IGM. Goodreads, 5 Feb. 2015

[sociologyprojectsblog]

See a Need, Fill a Need, and Make It The Victim’s Job: Race and Poverty Today

In America there has been a shift from blatant acceptance of “the culture of poverty” as the misfortune of those who are “less than” to a new ideology of victim blaming disguised as reform in the form of programs and lip service. Modern activists, politicians and the general public have made attempts to improve the plight of those who are disenfranchised. Instead of looking at the social construct of the “haves and have nots”, victim blaming as it is referred to in Ryan Williams “Blaming the Victim” article is rampant in our society as a placebo for institutional racism, discrimination and injustice with regard to our poor population. The programs that are in place to supposedly change the status quo, placate the wealthy and comfortable to assure that things are being done to help the poor. Programs such as food stamps, welfare, childhood headstart programs and other supports don’t address the root of why the handouts are necessary. Williams addresses the logic we use to think of struggling children in school, we ask “What is the culturally deprived child doing in the school? What is wrong with the victim?” (Williams, 364). True change that will impact individuals who are members of our poorest has to address the deep rooted problems that allow the ever widening gap of marginalized people and privilege to widen. Reading the article and thinking about it made me wonder. What if change were to happen at a level that impacted the norms and constructs that have been perpetuated for so long that are just accepted by society and seemingly cannot be shifted? What if the minimum wage were to become a fair wage? The idea that someone works for a minimum amount is disconcerting to begin with. What if our official forms and legal documents no longer categorized people by their skin color and just looked at people as human, only requiring a name, address and telephone number? What if college was a right for all people and not a privilege? Other countries seem to be able to look at their citizens as worthy of basic rights that allow for a socialist approach to housing, wage and health care. Poverty is the result of greed. Greed is the result of normalizing a capitalist, corporate society and a myth that we need material wealth to be happy and that it is perfectly acceptable for some people to have extravagant wealth so much so that they are served by others. Are we victims of greed and do we justify our own selfishness by perpetuating the ideology of blaming the victim for their unfortunate situation? The narrative of the “poor” needs to change, we have to recognize, “the tragic frightening truth that is a mythology that is winning over the best people of our time, the very people who must resist this ideological temptation if we are to achieve non-violent change in America” (Williams 373). The success of communities needs to be measured by the quality of life of its lowest earners, most vulnerable populations and real accountability of leaders should be emphasized in changing the narrative of “them” to “all of us”.

Sources:

Coles, Robert, and Search for more articles by this author. “Blaming the Victim. William Ryan: American Journal of Sociology: Vol 78, No 2.” American Journal of Sociology, 1 Sept. 1972, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/225340.

[sociologyprojectsblog]

The Mask You Live In: Toxic Masculinity

You might be familiar with the term “toxic masculinity”, but most are not familiar with it’s influence on all of society and how early its onset is. Toxic masculinity is essentially a set of attitudes or behaviors that perpetuate harmful stereotypes associated with men.

Toxic masculinity is defined as a set of attitudes or behaviors that perpetuate harmful stereotypes associated with men. Much like compulsive heteronormativity, masculinity is defined and imposed upon boys at very young ages. Toxic masculinity can develop traits such as physical aggression, fear of emotions and numbness, homophobia, hyper independence, degradation of the feminine, and a pressure to appear "tough". These traits are more common, but toxic masculinity can present itself in varying ways. The documentary The Mask You Live In provided an in-depth look at toxic masculinity in children. Through a series of interviews, audiences saw first hand the detriments toxic masculinity creates and carries into adulthood. One expert observes how, "We have constructed an idea of masculinity in the United States that doesn’t give young boys a way to feel secure in their masculinity. So we make them go prove it all the time." (Kimmel, The Mask You Live In).

So when does it begin?

Early pressure to conform to a societal idea of masculinity begins with children’s media. You might remember Mulan, a family favorite and certainly one of mine. However the song “I’ll Make A Man Out of You” sung by Shang during a training session, is a prime example of toxic masculinity. The song appears to suggest that a healthy form of inspiration is preying on insecurities, and cultivating aggression. Hence the line, “You're a spineless, pale, pathetic lot/And you haven't got a clue/Somehow I'll make a man out of you" (Dina, Leygerman. Romper). Several other family favorites and classic movies like Beauty and The Beast, Shrek, The Princess Bride, and Home Alone perpetuate stereotypical masculine storylines and pressures that while comedic, may send a wrong message to impressionable young children. Beauty and The Beast, with a seemingly empowered female lead is still dwarfed with an emotionally manipulative Beast, and a third sexist “manly” Gaston. From praised and romanticized aggression in male characters, to manipulative and abusive father figures (think King Triton from Little Mermaid). From Hercules, Prince Eric, and John Smith, the ideal man is buff, strong, aggressive and undoubtedly attracted to women. So, as Timothee Beneke states, “Why is it that successfully enduring distress is so central to proving manhood and proving superiority, not only in the United States but in most of the cultures in the world?” (Beneke, Proving Manhood). Why do we expose children to these harmful tropes through entertainment? Thankfully, while these movies remain classics, children’s media has slowly followed the rising amount of awareness of toxic masculinity and has succeeded in making content that will raise a generation of strong and vulnerable young men. In recent years, the animated film genre has introduced a much more healthy and realistic thematic arc. Movies like How To Train Your Dragon 3, Ralph Breaks The Internet, and Spider-Man: Into the Spider Verse, are all box-office hits that rely on a much more refreshing approach to character development. The entire series of How To Train Your Dragon has followed the main character Hiccup, a gentle young Viking, on his quest to find himself in a culture and community that values traditional masculinity. Spider-Man: Into the Spider Verse has introduced a new take on the Spider Man arcs, with a young Miles Morales learning how to balance a father’s expectations, healing from a violent uncle, and battling an antagonist who has taken to destruction to cope with his family’s deaths. While these films may sound mature for younger audiences, they have made millions while balancing important morals and breathtaking animation. If anything, these films prove there is hope for an upcoming generation to combat the learned behaviors of toxic masculinity and heal our communities and then the world.

Sources:

Bahr, Robyn. “Critic's Notebook: How Animated Film Is Indicting Toxic Masculinity.” The Hollywood Reporter, The Hollywood Reporter, 1 Mar. 2019, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/how-animated-film-is-indicting-toxic-masculinity-1190399/.

Leygerman, Dina. “8 Kid Movies That Actually Perpetuate Toxic Masculinity.” Romper, Romper, 18 Jan. 2018, https://www.romper.com/p/8-kid-movies-that-actually-perpetuate-toxic-masculinity-7936481.

“The Mask You Live In.” The Representation Project, 29 Mar. 2022, https://therepproject.org/films/the-mask-you-live-in/.

[sociologyprojectsblog]

Women’s Rights in The Roaring 20’s : ROE V WADE

On June 4th, 1919, Congress passed the 19th Amendment granting women the right to vote in America. The Amendment was ratified August 18th, 1920. The Roaring 20’s offered so much hope for women keeping the world going round, from major strides in contraception, to emboldened financial independence. Now, almost 100 years later, the right to abortion set in place by Roe V. Wade (1973) has been challenged. In a test case Norma Leah Nelson McCorvey also known by the pseudonym “Jane Roe” was the plaintiff in the landmark Americna legal case Roe v. Wade in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that individual state laws banning abortion were unconstitutional. However, for the the past 5 decades, this right which many believed to be enshrined in American culture, and practiced in every state in the union, also became a partisan political football between conservatives and liberals up to the present day when just a week or two ago a leaked decision from the U.S. Supreme court signaling that the highest court was about to overturn Roe became the hottest most controversial topic of the date. Many say that there is comfort in the Supreme Court merely deciding that Roe will no longer be the law of the land protected by the federal government, rather that every individual state legislature can decide whether that state will ordain that abortion be legal. The thrust of the issue debated for the past 50 years has been when a fetus in viable…that is at how many weeks can it survive outside the womb, or to quote the right fundamentalists, when does the fetus become a person and as such able to live independently outside the womb that terminating the pregnancy would amount to killing a person. Countless studies and expert opinions have come out with different conclusions since 1973, and while many states already state that abortion is legal the question still remains….”When is a fetus a person”….and at which time up to that point can a woman terminate her pregnancy through abortion. Our congress has never agreed on that question it seems and hence the issue has swayed from viability starting at 20 weeks, then 18 weeks and most recently at 15 weeks. Overall, the fight for women’s rights and bodily ownership has continued, and it is crucial to provide accurate information and support in a time of uprising.

Sources:

“Exclusive: Supreme Court Has Voted to Overturn Abortion Rights, Draft Opinion Shows.” POLITICO, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473.

“The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race and Ethnicity, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexuality, and Disability by Karen Rosenblum.” Goodreads, Goodreads, 5 Feb. 2015, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/26147592-the-meaning-of-difference.

[sociologyprojectsblog]

Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack

In “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”, author Peggy McIntosh writes of white privilege and it’s similar nature to “an invisible weightless knapsack of special provisions, maps, passports, codebooks, visas, clothes, books, and blank checks”. She then goes on to list her own privileges tied closest to ethnicity. I have chosen to identify some of the ways in which I, a lighter skinned Hispanic American woman, carry privileges in my own knapsack. While the majority of these privileges are race related, they are also connected to my class, gender, religion, and geographical status.

As a child, I was never criticized or stereotyped in school by my peers.

I have always had access to media that represents my race and gender.

I have never needed to worry about my ethnicity or race when filling out applications to anything.

I have never needed to worry about the implications of my race or gender when I have been in a neighborhood or moved to another neighborhood.

I am confident I will leave an encounter with law enforcement unharmed.

I can wear baggy and more informal clothing anywhere I go and expect to be left alone rather than profiled.

I will never need to worry about homelessness.

I will never need to worry about being kicked out of my home and family.

I have never needed to worry about food on the table.

I have never had to worry about being denied service at any kind of establishment on the basis of race.

I will always have a clear option of which bathroom I can use.

Should anything ever happen to me, I can expect law enforcement to follow my case.

I will always have bandaids, makeup, and other toiletries tailored to my appearance.

I have never experienced persecution for my religious beliefs.

I can practice my religious and spiritual practices without being deemed a threat.

I can expect a solid education and entrance to college.

I have never been called a profanity on the basis of my skin color or gender identity.

I can style my hair how I prefer, without being deemed unprofessional or distracting.

I can listen to any music I would like without being negatively stereotyped on the basis of race.

I don’t often worry about being fetishized in romantic relationships.

This list is very short and by no means extensive. My life experiences have been very comfortable and sheltered as a result of many of these privileges. I believe that my life would be very different if I were not as privileged as I am, and each of these privileges influence daily life. While I have experienced some difficulty grappling with my own intersectional identity, I have never felt threatened or come to serious harm as a result. I have experienced very minor alienation as result of my beliefs, but it is not something that influences me often. When I think of marginalization alongside privilege in my life, I think of the Christian church and my experiences with it. I have felt the homophobic kinds of opression that occur in the church, but I come from a wealthier middle class family that has never been alienated from the Church. I think I can use these identified privileges to become more aware of my surroundings, and how others might experience them. While there is no immediate shifting of societal biases, I can make sure I am aware, educated, and prepared when the time comes to make a difference.

Sources:

McIntosh, Peggy. “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.” Ed. Karen Elaine Rosenblum, Ed. Toni-Michelle Travis. The Meaning of Difference: American Constructions of Race, Sex and Gender, Social Class, Sexual Orientation, and Disability. 5th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2008. Print.