How (Not So) Far We’ve Come: Still “Doing Gender”

Last week I attended an Inequality Seminar here at Harvard. An attractive bonus to attending these lectures beyond exposure to work from scholars across the country is, to be honest, the free food. And due to the old habit of practicing good hygiene and the fear of Swine Flu, I went to the restroom to wash my hands before fixing me a plate. When I was leaving the bathroom I noticed that there was a baby changing station (pictured above) in the men's room. I smiled. For someone who was a Women's and Gender Studies major undergrad, I was happy to see that there was a baby changing station in the men's room as I have noticed the lack of them in many of the sporting, movie, and entertainment venues I frequented in the last year. And I think it is safe to say that I have only seen a few of the baby stations in men's bathrooms over the course of my life (of course more on this side of year 2000). This was, to me, was a step in the right direction. Go Social Progress!

The smile, however, faded quickly after I looked pass the family of elephants and saw the stereotypical, gendered depiction. Before I continue, I want to point out that the elephant family is a normative one—father, mother, and child—which is, to some degree, problematic in and of itself. Now I am not trying to make a mountain out of an anthill but one cannot (or at least should not) ignore the more subtle undertones of the seemingly "innocent" and "innocuous" depiction of the parent changing the child. This was a men's room yet still it was "Mommy" changing the child. Even in the quintessential, gender segregated location to which we all must abide lest we are called perverts or some kind of outcast by others in society, gendered norms and expectations are still as present, alive, and strong as ever. If one takes gender as a masternarrative, an ever-present entity in the background influences interactions between individuals in a myriad of ways, one sees the ways in which our actions and the behavioral expectations others have of us are scripted. Furthermore, we are looked upon to abide by those scripts. Where is Daddy elephant while Mommy changes Jr.? At the watering hole with the other bulls?

I think this cartoon on the baby changing station is an example that gives even more credence to the argument that we all do and are expected to "do gender." To paraphrase their 1987 article where Sociologists West and Zimmerman developed their revolutionary hypothesis that one can "do gender," gender is something one performs. This idea is important because it states that gender is not natural, not an innate characteristic of men and women. Rather, they assert that gender is

A routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishment. We contend that the 'doing' of gender is undertaken by women and men whose competence as members of society is hostage to its production. Doing gender involves a complex of socially guided perceptual, interactional, and micropolitical activities that cast particular pursuits of masculine and feminine 'natures.'

In essence, gender is determined not by one's biology, but by society's reaction to and perception of one's biology. Gender is one's conduct that affirms one's sex category. In other words, if one is male then one must act like a male, and if female, one must act female. A person's sex is a "biological fact;" sex categories reserve certain activities and characteristics for particular sexes, but gender consists of the "routine, methodical, and recurring accomplishments" of everyday life. West and Zimmerman argue that accountability plays a key role in producing gender, because not only are we responsible for "doing gender" on a daily basis, we are held socially accountable for all our actions—all decisions must be made as if being watched because each action either affirms or disproves our gender. But what do examples like this say about the expectations we have for women and men to perform in 2009?

I bring up West and Zimmerman here specifically because I think this picture shows the inertial force behind deeply held gendered expectations. Rubbermaid could have easily drawn one cartoon depicting a male caregiver changing his child and one showing a female caregiver doing the same. To my knowledge, very few places have only one single sex bathroom in their establishment. Even all girls all boys school have both men's and women's bathrooms. I would assume you have to buy the pair anyway. Or why not leave off the "human side" of things all together and remove oneself from the question of who to put changing the baby? If this post is seen as a one where the author is being nitpicky then so be it. But as the slogan from years ago simply and emphatically states, men are caregivers too. The last thing I will say is this: I believe it is time for us all to move beyond these false binaries which based on unfounded constructions of reality that are themselves the result of sociomental processes aimed at alleviating cognitive dissonance for living in a blurred instead of a dichotomous world.

Emasculating Environmentalism

During this past election cycle, it was a bit surprising to see environmentalism embraced by both John McCain and Barack Obama. Of course, this wasn’t the classic form of environmentalism. Indeed, the rhetoric of global warming was all but abandoned as they couched their campaign promises of “going green” in terms of economic recovery plans and a growing fear of “dependence on foreign oil.” It tends to be Democrats that hold a monopoly on eco-conscious policy, but this election cycle suggested that a new era of environmentalism was underway. It’s important to note that it seemed like most of the general public was behind it, particularly when the issue was framed as an anti-terrorism measure. As President Obama continues his economic recovery plan, environmental sustainability and energy concerns remain at the forefront of public policy discussions.

This is a marked shift from previous characterizations of environmentalism. Far too many folks have associated the title “environmentalist” with stereotypical images of weak, overly sensitive, excessively emotional, and self-aggrandizing tree hugging liberals. To be eco-friendly, particularly among men, was to reject rugged individualism and other standard images of American masculinity. In other words, it meant accepting an emasculated identity.

I assumed the political rhetoric of equating eco-friendly policy with national security concerns would shift our national consciousness toward more left-leaning environmental policy. Judging from Volkswagon’s newest national TV ad spot, I think I was very, very wrong. Note the explicit, sexualized imagery, as the hybrid owner's limp hose is juxtaposed with the erect basketball hoop looming over the Volkswagon:



In the ad, the owner of the hybrid is ridiculed as less of a man based on the sound of his car’s engine. I know that this is a basic marketing strategy—I mean, just watch any Ford F-150 ad in the last twenty years. Still, I find this stereotype—measuring a man’s masculinity by the virility of his car—to be a little tired. I’m not sure what’s masculine about carbon emissions. Nor do I understand what’s masculine about global warming. And I just don’t see what’s masculine about overconsumption. I’d never try to dictate what kind of car another man drives, be it a truck, SUV, sedan or sports car. That’s fine. But what I won’t do is challenge a man’s masculinity based on how much gas his car does, or does not, waste. Why is environmental inefficiency a mark of masculinity?

Look, I can be a critic of many eco-friendly efforts, especially when they detract from more pressing concerns related to unemployment, housing, and access to public transit. But that doesn’t mean I’m going to mock an initiative to, say, plant gardens in urban neighborhoods. When I disagree with certain “green” policies (such as urban “shrinkage), it’s because I think they will have a negative effect on the lives of average Americans. When I refer to environmentalism as “political white privilege,” it’s because I think many environmentalists fail to acknowledge the privilege inherent in living eco-friendly lifestyles. While they debate the best way to get to work, far too many Americans—disproportionately of color—are without employment altogether.

But what I do not do is scoff at environmentalists for their lack of masculinity. Volkswagon has the freedom to make wasteful and environmentally damaging cars, but that doesn’t mean they can mock folks that choose alternative methods of transportation. To bask in your own wastefulness and wonton disregard for the healthy lives of others—as Volkswagon does when they mock hybrid owners—is to display a tremendous arrogance and selfishness.

I don’t think I’ll be buying a Volkswagon any time soon.

Thoughts on Pixar's Up: Race Makes (Scripted) Appearance

Quick Snippet: Up: Beta, Alpha, and the Rest of the Dog pound

I went to see Up last week with my youngest niece. Rather, I paid for her to take a nap in the AC after traveling to the movies in Miami heat. First and foremost, I agree with the majority of America: Up is an incredible movie all the way around. I am not sure it is a children’s movie because some of the concepts are beyond the attention span of the typical 4 or 5 year old but it is great nonetheless. I loved laughing at Carl, the lovable grumpy old man who attempts to take a “solo” trip with Ellie on a magical ride to Paradise Falls, Russell, Dug, and the rest of the gang. Squirrel. (If you saw the movie you get the joke, if you didn’t, what are you waiting for?)

Okay, by now you know that this is not just me writing about how much I enjoyed Up. Jeremy and I are both graduate students trained to overanalyze everything, pick up on the smallest details, and make explicit the implicit. When watching the movie, though, something stood out to me that I couldn’t put my finger. It wasn’t until I searched IMDB that I realized what it was. Did anyone else notice that Beta, the Rottweiler, was Black? He is “played” by Black actor Delroy Lindo who some of you may remember from Romeo Must Die (he was Aaliyah's Dad). I had to laugh because of all the main dogs in the movie the Rottweiler was black. What is more, in looking at the credits, it appears that out of the dogs, Lindo is the only real actor. The rest already work for Pixar as sculptors, writers, or directors like Jerome Brandt, Bob Peterson, and Josh Cooley. In other words, they actually sought out Lindo to play Beta but stayed in house (and white) for the rest of the dog of note in the movie.

If anyone is familiar with the association between dog ownership and race, certain breeds of dogs are “racialized” and even classed in the media and in print. I am not claiming statistical fact. What I am saying, however, the representation of the association between race and certain breeds of dog is slanted in public forums. When you look at MTV Cribs, what race of individuals always showcase their Rottweilers in large cages or running around the sprawling green pastures of their multimillion dollar homes? Given the recent conviction of Michael Vick (and even before that), dog fighting (although not exclusively Black), is also tied to certain breeds of dog (in this particular case, pit bulls) and certain races.

A similar but more direct criticism of this kind was made, as many of you will remember, against Star Wars character Jar Jar Binks. People argued that his dialect, behavior, and even appearance—to put it differently, his entire being—parodies those of slave and blacks soon after emancipation. I bring up Jar Jar Binks and the debate over how he parodies a particular time period of African American culture as a parallel. I do not, however, call foul on Pixar for casting Lindo for the voice of Beta though I think it important to bring up. I must say that I liked Beta in the movie; he has some good lines that make you laugh too. Again, I thought this was interesting to point out. Am I being too forgiving of Pixar on this one because I liked the movie?

One last thing that I cannot begin to write on intelligently right now is why my gender studies sense perked up with Alpha. Why did his voice have to sound “girlish” because of his broken collar? Why did he not sound like a robot or like an announcer on a bad radio? Just as they purposefully sought out Lindo, they made the decision to make Alpha’s voice the way it was. I know it was for comedic effect. Personally, I think the “contrast” between his voice and body is what was supposed to be funny to us and all. But this has some assumptions about masculinity (more generally) that I am just not quite ready to buy.

Woe Is I. Give Me a Break

It must said from the outset that I do not like broad, sweeping generalizations when one speaks on issues of inequality or privilege, no matter the group. These generalizations stifle conversations, label any kind of serious discussion as “identity politics,” relegate substantive argument to secondary status, and obfuscate the issues at hand. Steve Saltarelli, a student at the University of Chicago, his group Men In Power (MiP), and the justifications for such a group do just that. Although controversial, his argument forces us all to remember—or think about for the first time—the original impetus behind single sex, single race, or single (insert your demographic characteristic of choice here) groups and societies. But first, his argument and its many, many problems.

Salterilli and advocates of “save the male” organizations and clubs forget that status of minority does not equal minority status for all groups of society. What do I mean by this? Sheer numbers for certain groups do not represent the power that group yields. Power and privilege are not always positively correlated with size or percentage of a population. Even with that said, however, their position is still faulty and unfounded.

A supporter of the group, Mark Perry, an economist at the University of Michigan in Flint, provides present-day “empirical” data to support the creation of groups like MiP:

“The group’s birth comes at a time when the recessionary ax has fallen especially hard on men. In April, the national unemployment rate for men was 10 percent compared with 7.6 percent for women”

The data used as evidence by Saltarelli and his supporters to show the need for such a group are national level statistics—data that take the nation as a whole as its sample base—yet the premise of their group is to speak to about “the plight” of a select population: elite men for Saltarelli presents the group as one that attempts to keep men in positions of power. Is this use of national level data fair? No. I would go further and say that it is dishonest. Saltarelli and Perry should know better. How can one present an argument for the need to empower men by hosting law, business, and political empowerment seminars because of the “dwindling presence” of men in those professions when one has not effectively shown that the men one advocates for are, in fact, a dying breed. Yes, the recession has hit certain professions hard and men tend to dominate those professions but this does not amount to evidence for the creation of such a group. If anything, it shows the need for more groups to empower women to make more in-roads into certain professions for representation of women in these professions are still not yet equal.

Now, writing that last paragraph hurt a little because in responding to that one particular point I was forced to argue from a position I detest: presenting a group—in this case men—as homogenous. This again is dishonest. The burning question I have for Saltarelli is, which men are you advocating for? (Personally, I think the unstated mascot of this group is a middle class, white male.) All men do not experience life in the same way and surely are not similarly experiencing the repercussions of this financial crisis. As my co-blogger Jeremy spoke on previously, low-income and/or minority men are the most disadvantaged men in this country and the unemployment statistics that we see are more of an understatement of the number of people without work than anything else. These are the populations who are driving up the unemployment statistics due to the outsourcing of jobs, spatial mismatch (jobs and employers in different location) social isolation, and employment discrimination. They were hit hard before the current crisis and are suffering even more today. Again, taking these aggregate level statistics, without attention to the disparate life chances and experiences of certain men pads the argument in favor of such groups. When one takes a closer look, however, we see that the demographic characteristics of those in privileged positions are still dominated by one portion of the population: privileged, white men.

Anna N. over at Jezebel is on point to say that when arguments like this are presented, it usually means that “someone from an already-powerful group is complaining about less-powerful groups encroaching on [their] turf, and that certainly seems like what’s going on here.” To put it plainly, I agree. I would only take it further. Saltarelli ignores the reality of gender inequality in the United States. Michael Kimmel, one of the leading experts on men and masculinity and professor of Sociology at SUNY Stony Brook, has spoken on issues of masculinity and the tendency of privileged white men to present “competing victims” arguments when they feel, as Anna N. noted, their hegemonic base is being attacked. One example being Kimmel’s “Save the Males: The Sociological Implications of the Virginia Military Institute and the Citadel” where the administration and alumni of these two military institute were in an uproar of the admission of the schools’ first female cadets.

Saltarelli and MiP stand as an example of what is wrong with a component of American culture. Sadly, some conservative notions go as far to equate gender equality with encroachment on one’s “rightful” place in society. I think it is interesting that advocates for MiP argue that all dissenters are “very set in their ways” when the reason for MiP’s existence is to reinstate and also reify the status quo: specific group of men on top, women (and effectively everyone else) on the bottom. Talking about drinking one’s own cool-aid.