Names and Gender

I always wondered why there are some names that are more "boy names" and others are "girl names". Never really understood the whole thing. And then to throw my mind through another loop, we have gender neutral names! There are some names in existence that are perfectly acceptable for both males and females. Thought I would share this chart of the 80 most common gender neutral names. But even then, there are some names that are obviously leaning more to the left, while there are others that obviously lean to the right. Thoughts? 

Cooking, cleaning. And Vaginas.

This is video of a song that I casually heard the other day, and while I found it hilarious because it was so ridiculous it also shows some underlying feelings of male supremacy. This can even be seen in the highest rated comments. One of these comments is “Cooking, cleaning. And Vaginas.” This is referring to a portion of the lyrics that reads “Women are only good for three things: cooking, cleaning, and vaginas.” See it for yourself.

"Reteaching Gender and Sexuality"

Reteaching Gender and Sexuality from Sid Jordan on Vimeo.

So, I was watching this video online today, and it got me to thinking about how the majority of the Prop 8 campaign (both yes and no), and the It Gets Better project focus on being gay as not being a normal part of society. While the It Gets Better project does serve to promote hope, this video talks bluntly about the fact that many people who identify as queer youth are tired of being put under the "LGBT umbrella." This really make me think, and I'm hoping it'll do the same to you.

Lecture Notes: Gender & Marriage (Baehr v. Lewin)

Here are some of my lecture notes for today's class summarizing some of the ideas and questions that are in play in the discussion of Gender & Marriage: Baehr v. Lewin. Many of these ideas are taken or adapted from William Eskridge's The Case For Same-Sex Marriage.

We shall be discussing the construction of gender and sex today, in the context of marriage law.  The cases we will be dealing with are Baehr v. Lewin, Singer v. Hara, Zablocki v. Redhail and Turner v. Safely, and, of course, Loving v. Virginia. We shall be analogizing the scientific and social construction of sex and gender with the irrational and sometimes confusing construction of race. However, by looking at the differences in the way that the law has treated interracial marriage from the way it has treated homosexual marriage we will expose and analyze scripts based on these two reified characteristics: race and gender.

For example, just as we ask ourselves "What is the purpose behind anti-miscegenation law?" we should also ask ourselves "What is the purpose behind the ban on same-sex marriage?" Happily, we have the texts of numerous legal decisions in both areas which give us a number of opportunities to analyze the scripts of race and gender.

Today we will be discussing how the motives and beliefs behind gender discrimination are concomitant with the motives and beliefs which lead to sexual orientation discrimination. Similar to the way in which we discussed how ideologies of race were played out in the area of miscegenation law one of the useful ways to consider "cultural ideologies associated with sex" (which we call gender) is also through the examination of marriage.

First let's consider the difference between gender and sex. Sex is what we call the characteristic which differentiates between 'male' and 'female.' Gender is what we call the cultural and societal associations aligned with sex. How do different characteristics get assigned to (biological) sex as opposed to (cultural) gender? In other words, what are the biological features of sex which "matter"?

If we have established that there is a "gender line" which separates masculine from feminine similar to the "color line" which separated White from non-White how is this demarcation regulated? What forces determine that this line is not crossed?
What sanctions occur if the boundaries of appropriate gender expression are breached? How are these different for the sanctions for crossing the "color line"?

In particular we are trying to see if we can identify similarities (and differences) between how race and gender are constructed by marriage and law. In the case of race, marriage is used as a regulatory device of the "purity" of the race; it maintains the dividing line between White and Other. In this case the dividing characteristic, race, is a cultural construct, irrationally derived from alleged biological differences which, when examined, are hard to justify. In the case of gender, how is marriage used as a regulatory device of the difference between the hegemonic and subaltern halves of the gender binary? What  are the (historical) rationales behind maintenance of the color line and (the current and future) reasons for the maintenance of the gender line?

We have already established that governmental classifications based on gender need to reach an "exceedingly persuasive" standard of heightened scrutiny in order to survive. A number of sex discriminatory laws by the State have been invalidated since the 1970s. Prior to 1970, laws which classified by sex or gender were routinely upheld. Currently, there are a number of ways in which the Government maintains classifications based on sexual orientation and discriminates against the class of lesbians and gay men. Classifications based on sexual orientation are not "suspect classifications," but merely receive rational basis scrutiny by Courts. 

Sometimes it is difficult to differentiate between sex and sexual orientation classifications. In fact, some people would argue that these two ideas are inextricably linked. Professors Andrew Koppelman and Sylvia Law have been in the vanguard of recognizing the intersection of sexuality and gender discrimination. This interesting theoretical notion has gained currency recently through the Hawaii State Supreme Court's ruling in Baehr v. Lewin that the state marriage law preventing same-sex couples to be issued marriage licenses violates the Hawaii state constitutional ban on sex discrimination. Even though the classification is based on sex, the class that is discriminated against is lesbians and gay men.

In the Hawaii marriage case one of the main arguments is that the nature of the current Hawaii marriage law is not a sex classification, but a sexual orientation classification. What difference does it make? What does this say about the way that law functions that this point is one of the main areas of contention? 


Below are summaries of the cases involved

Loving v. Virginia (1967) 

The United States Supreme Court invalidated Virginia's prohibition of different-race marriage as a violation of both the equal protection and due process clauses. The decision explicitly overruled Pace v. Alabama (1883 case in which the Court upheld a statute which criminalized interracial adultery more harshly than homoracial adultery). In defense of its anti-miscegenation law, Virginia cited the disapproval of different-race marriage by religious and moral traditions. The Court rejected this argument and characterized the statute as a "repugnant" attempt to "maintain White Supremacy." This decision initiated the "right to marry" line of cases (followed up in Zablocki and Turner)..

Baehr v Lewin (1993) 

The Hawaii State Supreme Court held that the state's denial of marrriage rights to same-sex couples is sex discrimination under the state constitution's equal rights amendment and remanded the case for trial to determine whether the discrimination could be justified by a compelling state interest. In December 1996, a Hawaii Trial Court found in Baehr v. Miike that the state's interest in supporting the upbringing of children in particular kinds of households uncompelling and ruled that Hawaii must begin issuing marriage licenses regardless of gender. The judge then granted a stay on his decision until the Hawaii Supreme Court could rule on the state's appeal. Before the Hawaii Supreme Court could rule the voters of Hawaii amended their constitution to empower their legislature to restrict marriage to mixed-sex couples, thus voiding the Baehr lawsuit.

Singer v. Hara (1974) 

The Washington State Court of Appeals upheld against both state and federal constitutional attack Washington's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples. The court both denied that the marriage law involved a sex classification and used a definitional argument to exclude same-sex couples from the institution of marriage. This was the first reported case to reject an argument that denying same-sex couples the right to marry is sex discrimination in violation of the state constitution's equal rights amendment.

Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) 

The Court invalidated Wisconsin's bar to remarriage when one partner has unpaid support obligations from a previous marriage. Emphasizing the state's interference with Loving's right to marry, the Court held that the law violated the equal protection clause by discriminating in the allocation of this fundamental right.

Turner v. Safely (1987) 

The Court invalidated Missouri's almost complete bar to marriage by prison inmates. Although the Court deferred to state rules regulating prisoners, it held that denial of the right to marry requires more rigorous justification because the unitive and legal features of marriage are so fundamental in our polity. 

    Here are some discussion questions to consider

1. How is marriage essentialized (i.e. what features of marriage are said to be essential to it in order for it to be called a marriage) in order to maintain the ban on interracial marriage? How is marriage essentialized to maintain the ban on same-sex marriage?
2. What characteristics does the United States Supreme Court ascribe to marriage in Zablocki and Turner? What impact does the USSC's characterization of marriage have on the question of same-sex marriage?
3. Contrast the language judges use in upholding bans on same-sex marriage to the language used in upholding bans on interracial marriage. Are there similarities? differences?
4. How are constructions of race and gender (through law and marriage) both similar and different?
5. When the USSC holds that the ban on interracial marriage is really a measure to "maintain White Supremacy" what "ideology of race" (Pascoe) are they adopting?
6. What ideology of gender does the current ban on same-sex marriage enforce or promote?
7. Try to form an analogy between Haney Lopez' arguments about Whiteness and a corresponding argument about Maleness. Can you do so? In what contexts does the analogy 'work'? In which contexts does it not work?
8. In what ways does The Law deal with gender differences differently than it deals with racial differences? Think of some explanations for the differences. Identify some similarities.

Kye Allums: NCAA Div. 1 Basketball's 1st Transgender Player

Kye Allums, is getting a lot of mainstream press coverage about his transition from female to male while continuing to play on the George Washington University female NCAA Division 1 Basketball team.

Official statements from GWU and Allums follow:

Statement from Robert Chernak, Senior Vice Provost and Senior Vice President for Student Academic and Support Services:

“Student-athlete Kye Allums has decided to live as a male student and be referred to as a male. The George Washington University supports Kye and his right to make this decision. Kye has informed the university that he will not begin any medical or drug protocols while a student-athlete. The University consulted the NCAA regarding his competitive status. Kye will continue to be a member of the women’s basketball team. Kye has informed his teammates, and the university, with Kye’s consent, has informed athletics staff and others, as appropriate.”

Statement from junior Kye Allums, male member of George Washington’s women’s basketball team:

“GW has been supportive during this transition. This means a lot. I didn’t choose to be born in this body and feel the way I do. I decided to transition, that is change my name and pronouns because it bothered me to hide who I am, and I am trying to help myself and others to be who they are. I told my teammates first, and they, including my coaches, have supported me. My teammates have embraced me as the big brother of the team. They have been my family, and I love them all.”

Thoughts about this modern example of gender expression and sports? For example, do you think that Kye should be unable to play on the men's team when he completes his transition from female to male? If that should happen then, then why not now?

Genderless Pronouns: A Possiblilty

As I started my story for this year's NaNoWriMo (click NaNoWriMo for the main website, click here for my page/story synopsis), I started to wonder what it would be like to write one character without any gender pronouns, thus setting me up to stop writing and hop onto Google. Apparently, it's harder than one would think to "create" a genderless pronoun without offending somebody in the process. One of the first genderless pronouns that came up while I was on Google was "it/its/it's," and this bothers me for many reasons. First, it seems to me to be the kind of pronoun you would assign a human being, not a gender-nonconforming person. Second, I would never want to be referred to as an "it." The phrase seems demeaning.

The next term that I came upon was the term "em." With this pronoun, the general consensus of the poster was that the term was "masking" a real gender. However, I think that em is a perfectly acceptable substitute or pronoun for those who don't conform to the gender binary.

I guess I have a couple of questions for you guys:

1. What do you think of using gender neutral pronouns in everyday society?
2. What pronoun would you use/invent if you answer yes?
3. If you answer no, why?
4. Do you think it's possible to write a story without revealing the gender of the mail character?

Other Gender neutral pronoun sites/blogs:

• http://tib.cjcs.com/2641/genderless-pronouns-ey-em-and-eir/
• http://www.braddolman.com/misc/xe.html
• http://www.facebook.com/pages/Genderless-pronoun/107065172662945
• http://aetherlumina.com/gnp/

Homophobia Lost? In UK, Straight Guys Kiss Each Other

Sociologist Eric Anderson is reporting that in Britain straight males are starting to engage in same-sex kisses with their peers.

Based on in-depth interviews of 145 British university and high-school students, Anderson and his colleagues discovered that 89 percent had kissed a male heterosexual friend on the lips at some point. A total of 37 percent had engaged in "sustained" kissing with another man, Anderson said. The men all identified as straight, and they didn't see the kisses as sexual.

"These men have lost their homophobia," Anderson said. "They're no longer afraid to be thought gay by their behaviors, and they enjoy intimacy with their friends, just the same as women."

[...]

The United Kingdom is less homophobic as a whole than the United States, Anderson said, but Americans should expect acceptance of men kissing on our shores soon enough. Research on American college soccer players suggests that 20 percent of those men have kissed another man, which is a harbinger of the trend, Anderson said.

It's not yet known how the trend of men kissing extends to non-University segments of the British population. Anderson plans to extend the research to minority men and low-income men who aren't in college.

Growing acceptance of same-sex kissing doesn't mean that homophobia is gone, just that masculine ideals are changing, Anderson said. His theory, put forth in his book, "Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities" (Routledge, 2009), is that in times of homophobia, men police their behavior to avoid being seen as gay. When homophobia fades, men can relax and explore behaviors that don't jive with the traditional masculine ideal.

"Decrease in homophobia has positive effects for heterosexual men as well," Anderson said.

Thoughts? Does anyone think that such "enlightened" views about how heterosexual masculinity can be constructed will ever cross the pond and reach the United States?

Gender Stereotypes Supported by Science?

I found this article on the blog cracked.com that argued that gender stereotypes we usually think of as "absurd" are actually true and supported by scientific studies. These myths include

women talk too much:

 

men are slobs:

women can't drive

According to the post, these gender based stereotypes can be proven by scientific studies. For example the post says that women do talk more than men do, based on the fact that "The areas of the brain responsible for language are over 17 percent larger in women than men." I was a bit reluctant to believe the claims made, because it is obvious that this is a comedy web site, but they do have the studies to prove their statements. I'm still a bit weary, but this has certainly made me think about gender stereotypes and if they hold any merit.

WATCH: MI Public Official Cyber-Bullies Openly Gay UM Student

This is one of the most bizarre stories you will ever see. A public official, Michigan Assistant Attorney General Tom Shirvell, has been electronically harassing the 21-year-old, openly gay, elected student body president of University of Michigan, Chris Armstrong. CNN's Anderson Cooper interviewed Shirvell. Watch what happens.




Cross-posted from The Mad Professah Lectures

Discrimination Against Black Women

As I read Free Papers by Daniel J. Wideman I realized that the piece concentrated on the issue of young black men being discriminated against. Not once was discrimination against young black women mentioned. Discrimination against black women isn’t only disregarded only in this piece but in many other places in society. Since this issue is so ignored I decided to do a bit of research and find out in what ways black women were most discriminated against and how they dealt with it. I was also curious to learn if they were more heavily discriminated against than black men because of their gender.

The most useful and informational article that I found was Black Women: The Unfinished Agenda by Cecilia A. Conrad in The American Prospect. This article explained how black women are discriminated against both because of their race and gender. Hence, even though black women have advanced so much in the fields of education they still earn less than black men, white women, and white men. The unemployment rates are also a lot higher for black women than all the previous categories mentioned. The article goes on to explain the detrimental effects of discrimination against black women. It’s a very interesting and enlightening article, I recommend everyone to read it.

On suffixes, and considering the term Transsexed

I posted this really briefly on my twitter before, but since I thought it was particularly pertinent to our latest discussions, here we go again:

On suffixes, and considering the term Transsexed:

"Now, I’m not as much of a linguist as I wish I were, but I’ve noticed a linguistic pattern, which is that the words that end in sex or gender are nouns describing an identity or condition or medical (or gender) history not belonging to a specific person or group of people: ”I read up on intersex and found out that there are many different types of intersex.” OR “When trying to describe transgender to people, I often have to battle their internalized binaries.” Not everyone is offended when these words are used as nouns describing specific people or groups of people (“My girlfriend is a transgender”), but I am. It icks me out.

Words that end in sexed or gendered are adjectives used for people and groups of people...t’s just a good way of recognizing that people are people first, and have many identities inscribed onto them.

So now we get to words that end in sexual, which is where the anomalies lie. Did you catch them yet? Words like homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, and asexual (and many more) describe a person’s sexual attractions...But then there’s transsexual and intersexual, which do not refer to attractions at all. I’ll start with the latter. The word intersexual makes no sense. Just don’t use it when talking about intersexed people; everyone will get really uncomfortable because it’s nonsensical. I love nonsense, but not when it’s being used to refer to people whose experience you do not hold. If you meet an intersexed person who calls him/her/hirself intersexual, ask them about it, but don’t use it unless they do."

This is a really interesting article on semantics which, being neither transgender or intersex, I'm sort of on the outside of. As such, I don't have much I can bring to the debate. Any thoughts? Think this idea is crazy? Think this idea is awesome?

Male and Female Signifieds from Gender Boggle

There's a cool program called Wordle which allows one to mark art out of a group of words. To see them best, click on the links.

Masculine


Feminine

Does social construction physically change people?

In "The Social Construction of Gender," Lorber asserts that gender roles are not biological but social creations. In the scientific world, however, there is accepted understanding of chemical differences between adult male and female brains. Different areas of the brain have more activity in males than in females. Kris Norato wrote a very interesting article (http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/notaro20100621/) bridging these two subjects, questioning the very existence of gender. Norato, who works in the field of ethical technology, hypothesizes that the social aspect of gender is what creates the chemical neurological differences between genders. It makes sense, because people experiencing similar emotional situations, such as PTSD, or grief, have similar chemical concentrations in the brain. Why not people of the same gender? Maybe society is capable of changing our very bodies!

Gender Stereotypes

When reading The Social Construction of Gender I was shocked at how real the actual "social constructions" of gender really are. Though gender stereotypes seem as though they are very obvious, it still shocks me at why they are still so prevalent. If people are so aware of what the gender stereotypes are and what the flaws of gender "segregation" are, why hasn't there been a change?
I feel as though, though there are those gender activists who fight for gender equality, there are still those who sit around and wait for a change and let themselves get subjected by gender inequality. For example, in Judith Lorber's The Social Construction of Gender when she uses the example of women in India not being credited for the amount of hard work it takes for harvesting rice.
Large issues like that one are really problems so large I don't see why they aren't being treated with more attention.
Lorber's first example of kid X really demonstrated that it IS possible for there to be a change. I think her purpose of using X was really a microcosm to show that gender inequality isn't something that is a permanent cause, but a small trend that just needs to be altered.

I also personally found Lorber's use of Fathers taking on a maternal role really highlighted that although it seems as though women are the only ones being socially categorized, really, men are being socially categorized as well and that it isn't societies norm to see a father taking care of his child in public.

I found an interesting article online about Talcott Peasons a well known sociologist who created "the Parsons model" which was used to illustrate the different extreme gender roles.
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/gender-role/talcott-parsons-views-of-gender-roles.html

Realizing Race is a Social Construct

For the first page or two of this paper, I scratched my head every time the author said that people didn’t know how to truly define race. Isn’t it obvious? Black, white, Asian... how else can you define it? When he did finally explain what race actually is by writing that it is “an ongoing, contradictory, self-reinforcing, plastic process subject to the macro forces of social and political struggle and the micro effects of daily decisions,” I wrote a big, bold, frustrated “What?” next to the sentence. In my mind, it was obvious that we were all divided by race. Looking around in LA, you can see how divided the races can be, such as the mostly Latino community of Highland Park and the predominantly Asian city of San Marino.

It wasn’t until I read, “There are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Blacks but not by non-Blacks,” that it finally clicked in my head. Duh! Obviously our DNA and genes are not necessarily specific to and determined by our ancestral backgrounds and the color of our skin. Society has conditioned us to believe that our behavior, thoughts, actions, and beliefs are linked to our race. But the divisions that I had been assuming were about race have nothing to do with race at all; it’s about culture. For example, it’s not because you’re of “Korean/Asian race” that you are familiar with kimchi and watch dramatic Korean dramas. It’s because you were raised with Korean culture in the home. The thing that can and does separate some of us is culture, not race. Of course, there are other things that can separate us, too, like our gender, sexual orientation, class, etc., but those are also all different types of cultures. And what is culture but a construct of society?