Techniques of Pleasure: BDSM and the Circuits of Sexuality

Posted on February 26, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

In Techniques of Pleasure: BDSM and the Circuits of Sexuality, Margot Weiss discusses the social, economic, class, race, and gender inequalities of the BDSM scene in San Francisco, and what Weiss calls circuits between those dynamics. She says, “I call such dynamics a circuit to draw attention not only to the dense connections… but also to the functionality, the effects of these connections.”[i] Weiss applies an ethnographic analysis to identify circuits in the BDSM scene based interviews she conducted with practitioners and participants in the scene and from in-person observations of various BDSM events, classes, and practices. As part of her class, gender, and racial analyses of the BDSM scene, Weiss cites and references a wide array of scholars in fields as diverse as economics, gender, sexuality and queer studies, history, politics, and race studies. Techniques of Pleasure provides a thorough, informative, and original account of the various dynamics within the BDSM community.

Weiss claims in her book, “I explore BDSM as a series of sexual, social, and bodily practices that provide opportunities to remake and consolidate forms of subjectivity built both on capitalist practices of consumption and production and on the regulatory normalization of race, gender, and sexuality.”[ii] She describes the various ways individuals in the scene argue that their interactions subvert various societal norms. Then, Weiss shows how the BDSM scene actually relies on and perpetuates racial, gender, and class norms to derive the power of the community’s alternative sexual practices. The book begins with an account of how and why the kink sexual scene in San Francisco evolved from a small, close-knit, lower class, largely queer community into a larger, predominately white, middle class one. As San Francisco developed an economy dependent on high-income information technology jobs, the demographics of the city and the scene changed to reflect the people more likely to hold those jobs. From there, Weiss discusses the prevalence of toys in the scene, arguing that the focus on material toys gives an implicit status and pleasure advantage to the white middle class practitioners who can afford both the toys themselves and the time to master their use. She finishes with a discussion of the social and political impact of BDSM sex and scenes. Weiss describes how the explicit, intentional power exchange in BDSM depends on existence of actual power inequalities based on race, class, and gender for their emotional impact and sexual pleasure. For example, in the scene it is considered ‘more acceptable’ for a woman to be a submissive than a man, reflecting the patriarchal power men have in society in general.[iii] Weiss’ analysis and discussion of the circuits she describes in the BDSM scene are consistently insightful, and wonderfully account for the impacts that intersections of class, race, and gender have on the practices she observed.

The analysis that Weiss brings to the BDSM scene are informed by her methods of gathering relevant information. She interviewed practitioners in the scene, and also experienced various parties, events, classes, workshops, and scenes as an observer. Weiss interviewed sixty-one participants “most [of whom] were professional-class white people in long-term relationships.”[iv] Bits and pieces of the transcripts of these interviews were included in the text, supporting and complicating claims made by Weiss and other scholars whose work she references. The quotations are a definite highlight of this book. The original voices and experiences of the interviewees shine through authentically, adding some much needed personality to the otherwise academic language of the book. The practitioner’s words provided frank and fascinating windows into the scene. Weiss also includes detailed descriptions of a variety of kink events such as slave auctions, national conferences, private bondage parties, takedown workshop demonstrations, as well more less sexually charged events such as munches, social gatherings for food and drink that do not involve any BDSM practices at all. However, the author uses a decidedly detached tone and point of view. Weiss says she told the people she interviewed that she is not into BDSM, and implies that she did not participate in any scenes as part of research for this book. Her personal taste for BDSM is unclear: “I found that the lose-lose situation of being, on the one hand, too close to or overinvested in SM or, on the other hand, too distant from or incapable of understanding it was more easily negotiated with SM practitioners… I have placed the imaginations and experiences of my interviewees and their scenes at the center of this book.”[v] Maintaining a measured distance from one’s subject of study in the name of academic integrity is certainly admirable. However, I would be fascinated to hear how direct participation in a BDSM scene would influence her analysis. That being said, it is certainly unreasonable to expect that the author would be interested in or willing to take part in a scene, much less relate such an intimate experience to such an impersonal audience.

Weiss locates her book and her argument firmly within the various class, racial, and gender conversations about BDSM. In accordance with her intersectional approach, she references gender theorists such as Judith Butler and Michael Foucault and other feminist theorists, as well as various economists, historians, journalists, race theorists, and activists. Each claim Weiss makes is carefully explained in reference to the work of previous scholars, making sure to clearly outline which ideas she finds useful for her own analysis and which concepts she intentionally disagrees with or discards. However, the quotations from other scholars were almost always outshone by the accounts of practitioners in the scene. The interviews were always more interesting and more enlightening, and it is curious that Weiss chose not to lean more heavily on the visceral accounts and surprisingly cogent arguments made by people in the scene, rather than academic arguments made by scholars who may or may not actually have experience in what they are discussing.

Techniques of Pleasure provides an original, intersectional account of the politics of the BDSM scene in San Francisco. While it is easy to view a community based on fringe sex acts as transgressing social norms, Weiss compellingly argues that, to the contrary, the BDSM scene depends on and reproduces those very norms it claims to transgress. The book is well-researched, and the entertaining descriptions and accounts of various BDSM practices keep even the non-academic reader well enough engaged to digest Weiss’ arguments. This book stands as an informative, unique account of the complex dynamics present in the BDSM scene.

Works Cited:

[i] Weiss, Margot Danielle. Techniques of Pleasure: BDSM and the Circuits of Sexuality. Durham: Duke UP, 2012. PDF. Page 7.

[ii] Weiss, page 20.

[iii] Weiss, pages 176-177.

[iv] Weiss, page 26.

[v] Weiss, pages 29-30.

Review of Playing with the Boys by Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano

Posted on February 26, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano’s Playing with the Boys: Why Separate Is Not Equal in Sports provides a lot of evidence and context to arguments about the division between men’s and women’s athletics, proving that women are unjustly segregated from men in the athletic arena. In writing this book, the authors meant to provide context and examples that support “how athletics shape and perpetuate stereotypical gender roles that limit women’s social, economic, and political opportunities, thereby maintaining women’s inequality in American society compared to men” (4). Through coercive sex segregation, our society has created and continues to blindly follow, ideas and rules that lead us to the end result of women not being allowed to compete with men athletically. Even as the women’s rights movement has come a long way in society in general, there’s still a lot more work to be done. One of those places where equality is obviously not present is in athletics.

McDonagh and Pappano introduce the idea of “the three Is” (7) which are the basic tenets of coercive sex segregation: inferiority, injury, and immorality. One of the reasons why separating sports by gender is still considered acceptable to people is because of the basic, widely accepted concept that women are naturally worse at sports than men—bottom line. It is assumed, that based on gender alone, the women would not be able to compete at a high enough level to play with the boys. In addition, many people fear for women’s safety when presented with the idea of integrating sports across gender lines. Due to the fact that women are, on average, a lot physically smaller than men, there is the feeling that a woman competing against a man is at a much greater risk of sustaining a serious injury. The final fallacy is the objective immorality of boys playing with girls, which is easily the most inexplicable of these three Is, and the one that I have yet to actually encounter in my life, but something that McDonagh and Pappano found to be present in the minds of others.

Another thing that the authors found notable was the way that society feels the need to force segregation in sports, even when it’s unnecessary. There’s no reason why men’s tennis players have to play two more sets than women’s tennis players: either shorten the men’s game to make it less drawn out and possibly drive up interest in the sport because it requires less time to keep up with, or trust that the highly trained athletes, despite being women, are actually capable of playing two more sets if need be. Even the slightest of rule differences, such as something that didn’t appear in this book because it’s a recent change—women’s college basketball changing wtih two twenty-minute halves like the men play, to four ten-minute quarters instead, giving them some extra rest during the games—implicitly enforce the idea that women are weaker, and therefore can’t handle the marginally extra wear and tear that the lack of a media timeout halfway through each half would cause.

An interesting part of this book, is that from the very beginning, it recognizes the importance of intersectionality. Even though it wasn’t for a few pages that the concept of intersectionality was truly addressed, the book’s preface begins with an anecdote that is overflowing with intersectionality: Don Imus referring to the members of a mostly black Rutgers women’s basketball team as “‘nappy-headed ho’s.’” (ix). Not only does Imus attempt to attack these women based on their gender, by using the term “ho,” which is meant to be a derogatory term referring to their sexuality, but he also includes a racialized comment, as black women are constantly being put down for their natural hair seeming unkempt, unprofessional, and unattractive. However, while McDonagh and Pappano make it clear that intersectionality is important in general, they would not be focusing too much on it in their writing because “assumptions about women’s inferiority to men in athletic endeavors cuts across all other ascriptive characteristics” (5), which is their way of saying that sexism is equal opportunity in the sports world. They don’t dismiss the importance of the combination of gender and other identities (in this case, race), but they make it clear that the way they see it, the views of women’s athleticism is the same no matter whatever else the woman may be. They defend this by saying that assumptions made by Imus, or anyone else, about female athleticism began with gender difference as the starting point, rather than another identity. Therefore, the authors stated: “our aim is to begin the conversation about intersectionality in sports by addressing the foundation of that intersectionality: sexism in sports in general and coercive sex segregation as an underrecognized form of sexism in particular” (6). They consider gender to be the key factor in negative remarks regarding a woman’s athletic prowess.

For the most part, this book relies on past research to further examine the ideas proposed early on. From looking to biology to address whether or not men have a physical advantage over women, or at the court cases that established precedents for women attempting to break into male dominated games, to contemporary, related quotes in the media that had some significance, the book did a really good job at coherently synthesizing a lot of types of research to create a book that flowed well logically. McDonagh and Pappano did not conduct their own surveys and present their results, but rather they gave an overview of the topic’s history and present.

The biggest problem with the way this book is written, is that it almost entirely ignores gender queer identities when talking about the sex segregation in sports. Outside of a few pages in the second chapter, this issue isn’t mentioned in the book. In fact, the term sex segregation itself is quite flawed. What McDonagh and Pappano really mean is gender segregation. As per the accepted definitions of the words sex and gender, sex refers to how a person is classified based on their genitalia at birth, whereas gender is a social construct that can be decided by a person at any point during their life. Instead of differentiating between the two, the authors assumed the gender binary to be true, and therefore basically ignored the distinction between the terms “sex” and “gender,” even in the brief moment that transsexual athletes were acknowledged. That is why throughout this review, even when referring to a moment where the book mentions sex, the word gender has taken its place, because that would be the correct term in that situation. They did talk about Anne Fastou-Sterling’s important work about the ambiguity of sex, which is too essential to ignore completely, but they didn’t really dig much deeper.

Being that this book was written in 2008, I am not able to give McDonagh and Pappano a pass on the basis on the book coming before the concept of a non-binary gender expression came about. By the time that this book was written, the idea of a genderqueer person was—while obviously not in the national spotlight nearly as much as it is in 2016 now that social media has really taken root in our culture—not unheard of, especially for some in the realm of academia, as McDonagh and Pappano are.

They probably avoided diving too deeply into the topic because the inclusion of non-binary genders, especially transgendered people, would have complicated the book so much more. There are already a lot of laws that govern the difference between men’s and women’s sports, which suggests that an entirely new set of laws would have to be put in place to account for athletes who choose not to identify with one of those two categories. Otherwise, many questions could be raised; are athletes placed into groups based on their genitalia at birth (and therefore, assigned sex), or by what they more closely identify with currently? Also, would it be fair to ask someone who refuses to be referred to as either a man or a woman, to choose one of the two? For something that couple have been its own book of research, the four pages that were devoted to non-binary gender expressions were not enough. Even after mentioning the importance of intersectionality early on in the book, McDonagh and Pappano deprive themselves of an opportunity to examine the clear intersectionality between gender identity and sex difference.

Is Your Brain Pink or Blue: A Book Review of Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine

Posted on February 25, 2016February 25, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

It’s no secret that men and women are different; whether it is the way they dress, the way they act or the appearance of their genitalia, but is there also a difference in the hardwiring of the male and female brain? Cordelia Fine’s book Delusions of Gender sets out to address this issue, and uncover if it is really hardwired into our brains that women are designed to better understand emotions and preform housework, while men are designed to be devoid of emotions and better suited to succeed in the professional world, especially of the math and science field. As a female college student I was especially drawn to Fine’s book. Are all my past and prospective academic achievements a waste of time? Where my parents wrong in telling I could do anything I set my mind to? Would my time have been better spent these past four years trying to find a husband and touching up my domestic skills rather than at Davidson?

The sentiments I’ve expressed above are just a few of the many gender stereotypes that Fine addresses in Delusions of Gender. The general consensus for many people these days is that men and women are equal. In western society women have equal access to political rights, educational rights and social rights, or so it would appear. Fine notes that many people, assuming this is the case, begin to question with all this equality between the genders why are women not succeeding in the same fields at the same rates as men, is the reason biological rather than social? To address this over arching question Fine has reviewed numerous scientific studies that make claims to have found biological differences within the brains of men and women. Fine however claims that its not biology but rather the environments we grow up in. “When the environment makes gender salient, there is a ripple effect on the mind. We start to think of ourselves in terms of our gender, and stereotypes and social expectations become more prominent in the mind. This can change self-perception, alter interests, debilitate or enhance ability, and trigger unintentional discrimination. In other words, the social context influences who you are, how you think and what you do.” (5) Through her systematic review of numerous studies Fine reveals flaws in the methods and conclusions of each study. Instead she claims that gender stereotypes are so prevalent in modern society that it is nearly impossible to conduct accurate studies to determine the truth about whether or not gender differences are innate.

Cordelia Fine is a Canadian-born British academic psychologist. She first received her BA from Oxford in experimental psychology, followed by a M. Phil from Cambridge University and a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University College London. She has conducted psychological research at Monash University in Australia, the Australian National University and Macquire University also in Australia. Fine is currently an ARC future fellow in psychological sciences and associate professor at the Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne. Delusions of Gender is Fine’s second book, which was proceeded by A Mind of It’s Own a study of how the brain distorts and deceives. She has also written countless works that have been published in academic journals, and as chapters to scholarly books.

Delusions of Gender is broken up into three parts, the first being titled “Half Changed World’ Half Changed Mind.” In this section Fine lays out the larger arguments of her book that social and environmental factors strongly influence the mind, challenging the “biology as fallback” view. Fine first introduces notions of associative and explicit knowledge. She discusses how through influences such as the media and gender stereotypes patterns in our environments lead us to unconsciously draw conclusions that women are emotionally driven, while men are driven by rationally based decisions. She states, “close or powerful others in your life may be especially likely to act as a mirror in which you perceive your own qualities.” (10) Fine also discusses stereotype threat, the fear of certain groups fulfilling the stereotypes attributed to them, in terms of women in the work place. The pressures of stereotype threat have been shown to cause anxiety, depletion of memory, lowered expectations in oneself and general frustration. Fine attributes stereotype threat and lack of fit bias, to the lower levels of female professionals in male dominated fields rather than hardwiring of the brain.

In the second part of her book, “Neurosexism”, Fine criticizes the current available arguments and studies conducted supporting notions of sex differences in the brain. She focuses on methodical weakness, generalizations and assumptions made by the researchers in their reports of the data. One of the first theories Fine contests is Louann Brizendine’s. Brizendine claims that due to a surge of testosterone experienced in utero, for male fetuses, the left side of the male brain is affected leading to death of cells in the centers of the brain that govern communication, and instead grow cells in the area of the brain that controls sex and aggression. Brizendine states that this suppression of the left hemisphere of the brain predisposes men to preform better than women in math’s and arts. Fine quickly undermines this theory by pointing out that there has not yet been developed an accurate way to test neonatal levels of testosterone and that there is no clear evidence that this testosterone surge affects the brain at all. Fine continues to proceed in this manner debunking scientific theories that have been based on studies with methodical errors or that have been grossly overvalued, such as conclusions about the human brain that have been based on studies of primate brains. She also introduces the “file cabinet phenomenon” in which studies that are not regarding as ground breaking or not deemed interesting enough to the public are not published but rather filed away, never to bee seen again. Fine claims that this has been the fate of many scientific studies that have actually proven similarities in the brains of males and females. Finally, in this section she examines the emphasis that has been placed on PET and MRI scans. The popular belief is that such procedures are the be all end all of scientific knowledge, when in actually this technology is still in its infancy and thus is not reliant enough to base entire scientific studies on.

The final part of Delusions of Gender , “Recycling Gender”, discusses the highly gendered society in which children develop. Despite attempts of parents to “parent gender neutrally” it is nearly impossible to do so in todays society due to common conventions such as media and pre school socialization. Children have been shown to be able to acknowledge gender differences as early as one year old, and are some of the strictest gender polices. For instance Fine notes numerous studies where it is actually the peers of individual students who criticize cross gender interactions.

With all this knowledge Fine is arguing that as a society we have not yet conducted thorough enough tests to determine whether or not there truly are gendered differences within the brain. Instead the ways we are socialized regarding gender from extremely young ages transforms the malleable mind to reflect gender differences.

Through her witty language and meticulous research Fine addresses the complex question of inherent gender differences with ease. Her biting criticism of sloppily conducted studies and humorous asides make the book accessible to those without backgrounds in science or gender studies. Fine does a great job of canvasing a plethora of studies and detailing why each one should be discredited. This is evidenced through her summery of each scientific study she has researched, the reasons she gives for debunking the study and through the 81 pages of footnotes that follow the main content of her book.

Due to Fine’s mass debunking of current scientific research conducted in the area of gender differences Delusions of Gender received a large backlash from the scientific community. At times it feels as if Fine has oversimplified the issues faced in the scientific studies and does not give credit to individual aspects of each study. She belittles any information gleamed from scientific research that she does not agree with. Furthermore, when discussing gender stereotypes prevalent in children’s television shows, movies and books she makes vast generalizations stating that girls are always seen preforming stereotypically feminine roles. While this may have been true during the time Fine was writing, only 5 years ago, I feel that there has recently been a turn to diversify the messages we are sending to children through media. Finally, with the exception of one mention in part two about the work place experiences of transsexual women, Fine does not address individuals that identify as anything other than male/female or man/women. She does not allow room for discussion regarding transsexuals, pansexuals or issues of intersectionality. She also does not dedicate anytime towards considering how sexuality may affect the binary of male vs female brain.

Accepting the belief that there is something inherent within men and women that are the source of the gender binary would be the easy way out. It is much more difficult to accept that the reason for the continual inequality between men in women is societal and that to improve these inequalities we will have to completely alter societal norms. Fine presented a clear and convincing argument of exactly this issue in Delusions of Gender. The book is thought provoking as it encouraged me to question my own personal beliefs regarding the gender differences between men and women, and how such beliefs have been presented and reflected in my actions from a young age. The book also provided me with better insight of the challenges I might face as I continue on in my life as a women with high academic and professional ambitions, and as a women who hopes to one day raise children in a gender neutral setting not defined by pink and blue. One of Fines final quotations “gender difference is the product of gender inequality, and not the other way around” really resonated with me, and something that I will continue to strive to undermine.

Fine, Cordelia. Delusions of Gender. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print.

By: Marin Williams

BetchesLoveThis, Feminist?

Posted on February 25, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

After hearing mention of it during one of our class discussions, I revisited Betcheslovethis.com, is one of the most interesting conglomerations of humor, news, and on-trend articles. It’s difficult to not laugh while reading anything from Betches, and as it geared primarily towards college aged females, the abundance of slang and humor as well as super-contemporary references makes it an appealing place to browse, seeing what is going on in the world of politics, fashion, and social media, amongst other things. After unpacking the Riot Grrrl Manifesto and discussing exploration of new and unheard of ideas through media, it is easy to see Betches as a liberating source of such media, opening up a multitude of dialogues that are not only important, but frequently shamed among other news outlets. Pretty feminist, right? Betches seems to have all of the best motives, bringing the media back to women in a way that is easy to explore, fun to read, and hilarious.

Because Betches is a community of different writers (similar to Buzzfeed or any other contemporary media news source), there is much diversity in the tone as well as topic of articles. From a brief thirty-second peruse, I saw tiles for furry-nail trends, dessert instagrams, and updates on the newest pop hits.

One article that caught my attention was this. Upon opening this article by a writer who calls herself “Blackout Betch”, I was frankly a little astounded. For those who might not have time to read the article itself, it begins thus, “If you think people lie on Facebook you clearly haven’t ever heard of LinkedIn. Cropping your fat arm out of your profile picture is one thing, but pretending to have any kind of career skills is another”. Interestingly enough, Blackout Betch seems not to find much value in accurately advertising career skills, but also begins by reinforcing the societal idea of what it means to be a “skinny woman” or as their website refers to them, a “skinny betch“. A mere click on their ‘Food and Fitness’ section, and I was swept up into a world of quick weight loss tips, ideas on making the perfect green smoothie, and even an article, “Learn to be Skinny”.

Returning to the LinkedIn article, another quote that stood out to me was, in the section talking about your “All of Your Connections” on LinkedIn, which Betches clarifies as, “AKA all of the guys you slept with in college and all of the girls you pretended to be bestie with.” This article, along with many others, does an interesting job of not only reinforcing heterosexual norms to appeal to a very specific demographic of women, but also seems to encourage the societal compartmentalization of gender, reinforcing the idea that women must all be a certain size, have a certain sexual orientation as well as promiscuity, and apparently, be ready to lie on LinkedIn and “pretend to be besties”.

Broadcast Lives: Radio, Television, Idealism, and Reality for British Women

Posted on February 25, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Maggie Andrews explores the role of radio and television in the changing constructions of domesticity and femininity in Great Britain beginning in the 1930s through the 1980s in her book Domesticating the Airwaves: Broadcasting, Domesticity and Femininity. Andrews begins by detailing the movement of radio into women’s purview as it claimed an increasingly important place in domestic spaces, while broadcasts became more targeted at women. She argues that broadcasting focused a great deal on domesticity and domestic life for a variety of reasons that changed as over time, but the place of radio and television in the home rooted them in domestic and consequently feminine space. While broadcasts were influenced by cultural and social perceptions of domesticity, these broadcasts also focused increasingly on the performativity of domesticity and so challenged the idealized narrative of home life.

In the 1930s the ongoing global depression put increased pressure on women as managers of their homes to find creative ways to make ends meet—a pressure that only grew during and following World War II. The war tore families apart as sons and fathers were sent overseas to fight, leaving the radio to fill the void and alleviate the loneliness of the housewives left behind. While this is likely in cases in which families gave multiple children or only sons, perhaps in addition to the father, it seems to me that in cases where women were left to take care of younger children as essentially single mothers would have little time for leisure in which radio would replace absent relationships. Andrews argues that radio found its place in the heart of the home and became an “intrinsic element of ‘domestic comfort’” (23). However, radios remained too expensive for many working class families, which, I think, does not necessarily undermine her argument with regard to middle and upper class families. It does, however, leave me with questions as to how working class families interacted with radio broadcasts differently given their limited access to them and to what extent working class domesticity developed differently as a result of this lack of access. While Andrews glosses over class in her discussion of the growing importance of radio in the late 1930s and through World War II, she does discuss class to a larger extent as she delves into consumerism.

Andrews asserts that women’s magazines differentiated themselves by the class they were directed toward. The 1930s and 1940s witnessed increasing emphasis on consumerism and consumption of domestic goods. While the ideal domesticity captured in broadcasts and advertising did not match the actuality of many women’s lives, Andrews claims it “gave meaning to the lived experiences of domesticity for urban, suburban and rural women” (31). Domesticity, in her view, was an ideal that appealed to working class women who struggled to make ends meet and often took on domestic tasks in addition to work outside the home. As wartime and post-war economic hardships set in, domestic life became increasingly unstable and unattainable the home was elevated as an ideal in need of protection (82). This ideal was also, Andrews argues, central to the war effort as a large part of what the war was being fought for—a home that was created by and contained women, and was protected by men in times of war. Women’s role in maintaining the home front was vital to the war effort, if underappreciated and unrecognized, while broadcasting engaged in propaganda related to domestic life and comforts, especially in the post-war years during which time rationing was put in place that significantly limited many families’ access to various types of food. Andrews makes an interesting point here when she discusses food as a marker of class, tastes, and identity. She discusses this in broad strokes, specifically focusing on class identity, but narrows inward to talk about the special importance of food and cooking to women’s identity in the ways they were linked to women’s status and power base. While at first read this argument seems to play into traditional stereotypes about women and their place in the home, I think Andrews makes this argument to demonstrate one of the primary ways in which women could exercise agency and perhaps individuality in a world that significantly limited their options. Andrews discusses the ways in which radio broadcasts presented an idealized domesticity and femininity that did not align with women’s real experiences. In contrast, television provided a new medium for portrayal of domestic life and took a different approach that highlighted the actuality of women’s lived experiences and the flaws in the ideal of domesticity.

In some ways, Andrews illustrates that television began much like radio in the way it quickly locked onto women as an important target audience because of the amount of time they spent in the home, and so with a television, as well as because of their role as managers of domestic spending, targeting them as consumers. She asserts that consumerism played to the imperfect nature of domesticity in the post-war era, presenting itself as the means to get to the ideal life these women dreamed of from their imperfect starting point (132). While Andrews discusses the advent of new programming directed toward women, of greater interest is her argument about the ways television broadcasts portrayed housework, domesticity, and femininity. Television programs emphasized the performative nature of domestic labor that it made visible in a way radio could not, which ties into the increased use and purchase of consumer goods by housewives much more so than in radio broadcasts because television put these goods on display (138). Andrews argues that this emphasis on the performativity of domestic labor in radio and television broadcasts stemmed from the audience they targeted, essentially that they had to portray domesticity in a way that made sense to those listening, perhaps echoed their own experiences, “in order to be credible for domestic audience” (148). Broadcasted domesticity sought to capture the variety of domestic experiences, the difficulties associated with it, and how women worked and lived in the gap between their actual experiences and the idealized life they dreamed of. Television shows like I Love Lucy reflected women’s dissatisfaction with domestic life as Lucy longed to pursue her dream of being an actress, although Lucy as a middle class wife, in my opinion, would have spoken much more to women in a similar socioeconomic position rather than a large swathe of British women. I Love Lucy provides one example for me of Andrews’ argument for middle class domesticity as the norm even in broadcasting, while working class domesticities were seen as a sort of “cultural tourism” for the middle and upper classes (152). Andrews discusses the similarities between radio and television in the ways they targeted women as a prime audience, but argues that television carried radio’s portrayals of domesticity further, showing dissatisfaction with domestic life in more obvious ways that better mirrored the real lives of women. While television broadcasts resonated with middle and working class women differently, Andrews makes clear that the middle and upper classes had great anxiety about working class domesticity, and it is this anxiety that she follows into broadcasting in the 1960s and 70s.

Andrews argues that domesticity was an “endorsed” or “reasonable dream” of working class people, but the reality of their lives made it a less realistic dream than many imagined. She asserts that the social upheaval of the 1960s stemmed from two connected things: a cultural revolution and the modernization of technology that threated working class life (149). Changing lifestyles and cultural and sexual morays influenced new understanding and ideas about domesticity, which were reflected increasingly as time passed. Andrews makes an important note that television broadcasts often focused on the most unconventional, most shocking working class families and domesticities in a way that failed to capture the actuality of most peoples’ lives, which makes sense to me in considering the ways that television today focuses on the exceptional, the most out of the ordinary to attract attention, shock value, and captivate audiences in whatever way possible. She discusses the impact of the political visibility of second wave feminism, in which some feminists argued that unpaid domestic labor was tied to women’s low status, as feminine domesticity was assumed to be natural (180). Andrews claims that broadcasting had already disproved the “’naturalness’ of feminine domesticity” through its emphasis on the performativity of domesticity (180). However, I think that if this were true, second wave feminists would not have needed to argue about it or publish work revealing it as a persistent and harmful assumption. As economic hardship continued to strain primarily working class women, new broadcasts sought to capture their struggles but continued to focus on the worst off. While this emphasis is good in terms of making known the real challenges some women faced, it still failed accurately represent most working class women’s lives. As these challenges persisted through the 1970s and 80s, Britain witnessed a shift in responsibility, moving away from the state caring for families and toward domestic life supporting the function of the state (187). Broadcasting changed alongside politics and culture, and the advent of chat shows in the late 1980s and early 1990s allowed working class people to claim space in public life, although this space was small and restricted. Andrews argues that chat shows sought ratings through sensationalism primarily of the domestic sphere, as they “repeatedly conveyed the domestic sphere as in turmoil, fragile, fluid, temporary, sexually unregulated and distanced from the middle class ideals of family life” (191). This focus on sexuality and sexual relations made the private affairs of people’s lives public like the familiar aspects of domesticity that had been public for decades. Andrews talks primarily of domesticity in this section, but neglects to talk about women apart from domesticity in what could have been a fruitful discussion of the way femininity is positioned as responsible for controlling masculine sexuality. Women were the primary focuses of chat shows that gave great attention to their sexuality with men as sort of supporting actors. Broadcasting companies continued to try to negotiate the balance between showing “real” domesticity and the idealized version into the twenty-first century. Idealized domesticities continued to show up on television screens; however, these were “emphatically performative—neither natural, private, calm or necessarily feminized” (210). Twenty-first century broadcasting wrestled with the same difficulties radio and television faced decades earlier, but new mediums and types of shows provided new avenues to explore the dichotomy between real and ideal domesticity.

Andrews takes on an enormous project in seeking to analyze the ways broadcasting, domesticity, and femininity shaped one another over the course of nearly eight decades. While her discussions of domestic life and broadcasting provide great detail, especially during and immediately following World War II, her attention is almost entirely devoted to domesticity, with femininity as an afterthought in some places. Her other major shortcoming in this work is the lack of a discussion on race. While one could argue that Britain was overwhelmingly white in the pre-war years, the influx of immigrants following the war created significant diversity, which Andrews ignores. Her discussion of domesticity, then, can be only considered in white terms and echoing white experiences. Although a meaningful discussion of race would have made her project even larger, it would have provided a valuable piece to a greater understanding of the evolution of British domesticity. Andrews’ work provides significant insight into the role of broadcasting into the evolution of white British domesticity over an expansive time period, and primarily wrestles with the balance between the ideal people envisioned and the reality of most peoples’ lives.

Odd Couples

Posted on February 24, 2016February 24, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Human beings strive for relationship and companionship. It is in our nature. Most people tend to bond with others based on the premise of similarity. This is not always the case however. In her work Odd Couples: Friendships at the Intersection of Gender and Sexual Orientation Anna Muraco takes a look at specific types of relationships: those crossing gender and sexual orientation boundaries. “Odd Couples examines intersectional friendships between gay men and straight women and between lesbian men and straight men to show how these friendships serves as a barometer for shifting social norms, particularly with respect to gender and sexual orientation”.[1]

Muraco examines the relationships between opposite-sex, opposite-orientation adults through various interviews with 26 friendships dyads and triads in the San Francisco Bay Area.[2] More specifically, she, “relied on the participants’ self-identification of being in a close intersectional friendship as sufficient to include them during the study.”[3] From there, she asked participants to explain what they believe it means to be a close friend. Muraco has a multitude of reasons for desiring to study the friendships between opposite-sex, opposite-orientation individuals. For one, she believes that previous studies about the same topic do not examine these relationships thoroughly or not in the same way that she desires to; that “A gap exists in social science research […]”.[4] This gap is due to the fact that friendships are more often studied in youth and young adults rather than adults. Another reason for Muraco’s desire to examine friendship groups was the desire to understand whether or not sexual orientation mitigated inequality between men and women.[5] There has been prior research on this question, however, as Muraco points out, the prior research has not answered the question as to whether or not the absence of sexual tension and romance allows for more egalitarian relationships. Neither has it answered whether or not gender norms will still apply in these relationships.[6] Not only does this research by Muraco answer these questions, but it also challenges the concept of compulsory heterosexuality introduced by Adrienne Rich.[7]

Although lack of previous research motivated Muraco to write Odd Couples, she began to examine intersectional relationships by looking at her own relationship and the relationships of those around her. Her best friend of over twenty years identifies as gay, while Muraco herself is straight. As time went on and pop culture changed, Muraco began to notice the similarities between her own relationship with Mike and other relationships that they were exposed to. One example of a pop culture item to which Muraco and Mike related was the 90s sitcom Will and Grace, which detailed the lives of a gay man and a straight woman who were best friends. After noting the similarities between herself and “Grace” and Mike and “Will”, Muraco began to find other friendships similar to her own in films like My Best Friend’s Wedding, The Next Best Thing, and The Object of My Desire.[8] However, while Muraco knew of relationships between lesbian women and straight men, their portrayal was lacking in comparison to that of gay men and straight women.[9] Muraco’s curiosity about why there was less of a portrayal of friendships between lesbian women and straight men spawned her examination of intersectional friendships and eventually led to Odd Couples.

In the area of organization of her argument, Muraco uses each of her chapters to examine a different aspect of intersectional friendships. In her introduction, Muraco provides background into her study; how she came upon the topic and how it was conducted. From there Muraco sets up further background of her own study by examining friendships as a whole and friendships that cross differences. In the second chapter of Odd Couples Muraco introduces the reader to three of the friendship dyads she encountered, Vanessa and Bruce, Emily and Patrick, and Scott and Ruth. These relationships are focused on because they highlight some of the common themes featured in the other dyads and triads presented as the book progresses.[10] One of the benefits of an intersectional friendship is featured in the relationship between Emily (a lesbian woman) and Patrick (a straight man); Patrick reveals that the fact that Emily is a woman allows him to be vulnerable with her than he would with other males, defying gender norms.[11] Ruth and Scott’s relationship shows the common themes that while intersectional friends may care deeply for one another, they do have their struggles.[12] The relationship between Bruce and Vanessa shows another theme common in the other intersectional friendships; the fact that they often form out of common interests and bonds.[13] Muraco challenges the notion that blood is thicker than water in the third chapter, which focuses on how friendships can serve as a secondary family. For example, one of the friendships Muraco looks at is between Brenda and Dan, who met while they were in college. Brenda, a butch lesbian, lives with Dan and his wife Rosie and their children. They all pitched in to buy a home together.[14] This strengthens the notion that “intersectional friends were better or truer forms of family than their families of origin […]”[15]. As the chapter continues, Muraco also discusses child rearing in intersectional friendships and marriage. Gender norms and identities are discussed in the fourth chapter of the book. In the relationship between Mark and Christina, it is clear that Mark, a gay male, lives vicariously through Christina, by commenting on her appearance and with the advice that he gives her. In this way, Muraco believes that gay men have a tendency to reinforce the beauty norms that straight women face. Christina suggests that perhaps gay men have the desire to be women. [16] Other women in this chapter refers to themselves as gay men living in the bodies of straight women, this is to say that they identify with the culture their friends are involved in, recognize similarities in marginalized positions, or they feel more masculine than their female counterparts. The lack of sexual tension between intersectional dyads also allows for more openness between the friends.[17] In the fifth chapeter, Muraco talks about how sexuality and sexual orientation factor into intersectional friendships. One example of this is how intersectional friendships can tend to begin to resemble heterosexual, romantic partnerships. This was the case between two friends, Jill and Paul.[18] Also to be noted in this chapter was that in relationships across sexuality and gender were said to have less sexual tension than, say a friendship between two gay males.[19] Muraco examines the politics of intersectional friendships in the sixth chapter. She looks at the way these relations tackle compulsory heterosexuality, and how gay men and lesbians expand their horizons by interacting with straight men and women and how the opposite is true. It also leads to more comfort in general when it comes to being with those of a differing sexual orientation.[20] In her conclusion relates her study to what is next for intersectional friendships as the climate towards gay and lesbian individuals changes. Muraco specifically states, “In this final section, I address how we can look to intersectional friendships as a model for postmodern relationships and political alliance and discuss the shifting social contexts to influence the future of intersectional friendships”.[21]

One area of strength in this work is that Anna Muraco well situates herself well within the other research completed on similar topics. She thoroughly explains where other studies are lacking, and where her study fills the gaps. However, one weakness in her argument and the way that her study is formatted is that she seems to try to overuse some studies; they crowd the point that she is trying to make.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed reading Anna Muraco’s Odd Couples: Friendships at the Intersection of Gender and Sexual Orientation. I thought that her observation about the lack of representation of lesbian/straight male relationships was astute as well. I would recommend this book to those who are in an intersectional relationship like some of the ones described or to people who are not and desire to learn more about intersectional relationships.

Bibliography

Muraco, Anna. Odd Couples: Friendships at the Intersection of Gender and Sexual Orientation. Durham: Duke University Press, 2012.

[1]Anna Muraco, Odd Couples: Friendships at the Intersection of Gender and Sexual Orientation (Durham: Duke University Press, 2012), LOC 94

[2]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 243

[3]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 221

[4]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 157

[5]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 178

[6]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 178-188

[7]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 146

[8]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 83

[9]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 94

[10]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 766

[11]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 862

[12]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 960

[13] Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 1066

[14] Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 1189

[15] Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 1269

[16]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 1672-1683

[17]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 1846

[18]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 2186

[19]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 2209

[20]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 2502

[21]Murano, Odd Couples, LOC 3002

*The reasoning behind the use of location number rather than page number is due to the fact that this work was viewed on a Kindle.

Book Review of Strip Club: Gender, Power, and Sex Work

Posted on February 24, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Sex work is finding itself raging in contemporary debates – should it should be legalized, and if so, how it should be regulated. Rather than plunging into the oh so typical debate of legalization of sex work, Kim Price-Glynn takes a different angle in her ethnography, Strip Club: Gender, Power, and Sex Work, looking at the organizational structure of the institutions that house most of the United States sex work, the strip club. Sex work relates to “the exchange of sexual service, performances, or products for material compensation. It includes activities of direct physical contact between buyers and sellers as well as indirect sexual stimulation.”[1] Price-Glynn does not offer a clear definition of what she understands sex work to include other than stripping, prostitution, and pornographic films. In order to gain a better understanding of sex work and explore the issues of gender and power related to sex work, Price-Glynn took an interest in studying a strip club in Railton, a small, rural, northeastern town. For fourteen months, Price-Glynn fully emerged herself in her research by working in “The Lion’s Den” as a cocktail waitress, enabling her ability to observe, conduct research and analyze a strip club from an inside position. During her time at the club she conducted interviews and observed the organization in order to either prove or disprove her theory. Although the United States has several other institutions dealing in sex work, Price-Glynn specifically chose a strip club because she felt that there was a lot to uncover about what drives women to becoming sex workers and what attracts sex patrons to strip clubs, and that by uncovering these answers, we can gain a better understanding of the gendered, organizational, and economic benefits for strip clubs and their sex workers.

Price-Glynn situates herself in an outsider/insider approach, one that she adopts from Eleanor Miller and Wendy Chapkis. Eleanor Miller produced the study, Street Women in 1968, which studied prostitution and other forms of street hustling. Miller, an outsider, by means of a bar job, interviews, and courthouse visitations, gained access to the street women of Chicago. By connecting on a personal level, Miller was able to view the prostitutes’ lifestyles in ways more than just illegal activity. Later in 1997, Wendy Chapkis brought a new approach to researching sex work by participating as both an insider and an outsider. She collected reports and conducted interviews of multiple sex workers in the United States and abroad to shed more light on the “sex wars” debate. She later participated in a co-taught sexual massage class and even used the techniques learned on other women. By acting as both an outsider and an insider, Chapkis brought a radically different approach to sex work research. Inspired by both Chapkis and Miller, Price-Glynn acted as both an outsider and an insider in her research. As an insider she was a waitress in the strip club. As an outsider she keep a professional relationship with those she interviews and met in the club. Although her research method is adopted, Price-Glynn distinguishes herself from previous sex-work research because she looks at how the strippers are marginalized by the organizational structure of the club rather than by the work itself or by the gender inequality in the work. With her research, Price-Glynn, is opening a new door to the way sex work could be mitigated in order to benefit the workers.

Fourteen months of working at “The Lion’s Den” provided Price-Glynn with a vast amount of research and observations. Not only was she constantly observing the environment and the actions within the strip club by means of her waitressing job, she also collected information through interviews of nearly every person involved in the business: waitresses, strippers, doormen, patrons, business owner, etc. From the beginning, she had a goal of ameliorating the professional lives of sex workers saying, “it is my hope that what emerges from studying a strip club as an organization is an intimate portrait of life and work in the strip club”[2]. She planned to use this work as a platform to offer proposed changes in order to improve the work life of those involved in sex work. She found, as she had assumed, that the strip club was organized in a way that benefits male employees and patrons who visit the club. This intense masculine culture is responsible for marginalizing the strippers. Price-Glynn’s objective however is not to demonstrate that sex work contributes to the gender inequality problem in America, but rather to propose that it is actually the organizational structure of a strip club business itself that is responsible for marginalizing the strippers. This research eventually led her to the conclusion that the working environment for sex workers, specifically the strip club, must be improved. This improvement must stem from a reorganization of the strip club institution itself in order to allow women to feel empowered rather than enslaved by the work they are doing.

By immersing herself into the club scene, Price-Glynn gets about as naturalistic a view as she can get about the lives of sex workers, without actually becoming one herself. Her job as a cocktail waitress allows her to analyze and examine what truly goes on between patrons and the strippers, between the strippers and the boss, and even between strippers and other strippers. This insight allows for a more complete depiction of the strip club life, which unfortunately does not reflect positively of the current strip club life. While working there, Price-Glynn had the unpleasant task of listening to the horror stories and the emotional pain that strippers are subjected to every day and night. Some strippers told stories of how they had been digitally raped while performing on stage, others spoke of how they were expected to perform oral sex (even when touching is explicitly prohibited on the job), some even vocalized their feelings of abandonment when bouncers turned their heads when patrons touched and groped them. But one story that almost every stripper shared was their desire to keep their work life completely separate from their real life, and how complicated and tiresome the struggle was to do so. One stripper recounted that she refuses to touch or be near her partner until she showers saying, “I don’t feel clean, and I don’t feel like I want to touch him or I want him to touch me.”[3] Another described the importance of showering, describing her routine in detail…

“First, I suds up from head to toe and rinse the foreign touches, foul odors, sweat, and grime from my body. After I consider myself squeaky clean, I make the water as hot as I can stand, and rotate slowly under the shower, making the temperature hotter still. The burn is purifying.”[4]

In addition to the interviews with the strippers, Price-Glynn collected information about the strip club’s business structure such as the way things operated during the day and the way wages were calculated. She found that security and safety were compromised regularly because the success of the club was valued more than the safety of the strippers. For instance, the intense masculine culture in a strip club causes the desire for physical boundaries to be broken, and if patrons want or think that physical contact is a possibility, then the club will be more successful with more customers and customers spending more on average. The collateral damage of the club’s success is the strippers’ safety and comfort. She also discovered the way wages were divided in a strip club. The strippers do not actually receive any money other than the money that patrons placed on their bodies while performing. But not only do they not receive a fixed wage, they must pay the strip club in order to gain the “right” to perform there.

The information gathered by means of truly working and integrating into the life of an employee of a strip club immensely validates the accuracy of her research and her conclusion of the organizational structure of a strip club needing reform because it is currently an unsafe place for women. The women who work in the strip club industry are extremely susceptible to psychological, emotional, and in some cases physical harm due to the way the structure marginalizes them. In order for stripping to become a safe type of sex work for women, Price-Glynn advocates for a restructuring of the organization of all strip clubs in order to empower the women rather than continuing the suppress them.

[1] Sex for Sale: Prostitution, Pornography, and the Sex Industry, edited by Ronald Weitzer, Routledge, 2000.

[2] Price-Glynn, Kim, Strip Club: Gender, Power, and Sex Work. (New York, 2010), 3

[3] Price-Glynn, 134.

[4] Price-Glynn, 135.

Is There True Equality During Pregnancy?

Posted on February 24, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Reconceiving the Second Sex: Men, Masculinity, and Reproduction (2009), was written by anthropologist Marcia C. Inhorn. The title alone gives an overview of what the reader should expect to see throughout the book. Men and Masculinity are understood to be the Second Sex in Inhorn’s title when the topic of reproduction occurs. The book cover consists of a female egg being fairly lager than the sperm that are surrounding it. The cover also portrays a sort of male dominance, yet at the same time, it could be interpreted as the males being left out and secondary. Inhorn writes about a variety of topics dealing with reproductionn and how men are always put on the back burner as the “The Second Sex” (Inhorn 1). She did a thorough job on observing men and their involvement during pregnancy.

Inhorn’s book has four different sections: Masculinity and Reproduction, Fertility and Family Planning, Infertility and Assisted Reproduction, and finally, Childbirth and Fatherhood. The chapter that conveyed her book as a whole, and what I would like to focus my analysis on is chapter 11 in the Childbirth and Fatherhood section. This chapter resonated with me as Inhorn analyzed the male role in reproduction and gave me a focus on male gender roles during pregnancy.

More recently, there has been conversations in the scientific field that men are becoming more involved during pregnancy. They are more likely to accompany women during doctor visits (especially ultrasound screenings), major decision making (such as amniocentesis), and even birthing courses. But pregnancy is still not fully equal amongst men and women. Inhorn questions the man’s involvement during pregnancy by explaining how she observed the cover of a Hebrew textbook on gynecology. The cover has a pregnant woman and her gynecologist physically touching while the woman’s partner is standing on the side. Inhorn questions the view of the male perspective on his female partner by asking “how does she look from his perspective” (Inhorn 281)? Through the lens of an anthropologists, Inhorn shifts her focus onto Israeli men in chapter 11 to “add a culturally situated account of men’s involvement in pregnancy” (Inhorn 282).

In chapter 11, “We are pregnant”: Israeli Men and the Paradoxes of Sharing, Inhorn immersed herself in the Israeli culture in 2003 as well as 2006 (287). She observed 39 couples, most of whom were married except for one. Most of the couples were first time parents with different social statuses, different ages, and different religious backgrounds (288). Inhorn conducted her work through an anthropological perspective which I appreciated because it allowed for in depth research. Since she was there once, she could observe changes during her return and analyze the differences between her 3 year gap. Inhorn refers to anthropologist and feminist writers that mention “various tensions, paradoxes, and contradictions” when men were involved during pregnancy (283).

During Inhorn’s analysis, she viewed the couples without interrupting their natural thinking process. Instead of conducting interviews, she sat in on birthing courses to hear couples speak. For these birthing courses, the brochures provided had images of men physically involved with the woman unlike Inhorn’s observation of the Hebrew textbook on gynecology. One of the brochures had the name of “Giving birth together” in hopes to make men feel included (285). These courses were all about establishing equality and were more academic rather than relaxing. Inhorn observed American birthing classes as more relaxing techniques and a “rite of passage” (286). On the other hand, Israeli birthing classes were more academic, but not strictly medical (300). Having larger groups rather than having just the woman, her doctor, and her partner, allowed for a more social atmosphere, as Inhorn noticed while attending these birthing courses.

Furthermore, Inhorn’s research provided some interesting topics that I agreed with. A gender role that is usually accepted throughout pregnancy is the woman researching and gaining knowledge about giving birth while the man is only expected to participate once the woman goes into labor. In the course of her observations, Inhorn became aware of the many tensions that occurred while getting men involved. For instance, a couple named Yoni and Tali presented a central tension which usually deals with a “shared pregnancy” problem (298). The couples issue has to deal with the fact that the pregnancy takes place in the woman, not the man, so how can it be shared? These tensions happen frequently, but they are usually resolved later on. Inhorn goes on to describe an experienced midwife’s “interesting” birthing courses that gives the couples a tour of the “birthing room” that would be in a hospital with medical equipment. However, Ruth was being stereotypical because she saw men as observing the monitors on the medical equipment instead of using the massage techniques she taught them.

Nevertheless, there were a few instances I did not agree with during one of Inhorn’s observations. Inhorn viewed men being accommodated during the birthing courses. On the day of the World Cup soccer tournament, the couples decided to come to the birthing courses regardless of the hoopla that surrounded the soccer game. At the beginning of the course, the instructor goes on to say “They must love you a lot, girls, you should appreciate them” to affirm the men and their bravery for missing the World Cup (289). I disagreed with this appreciation of men because if they wanted to be a part of the pregnancy they had to be willing to be there and it was not a “special effort” to miss a soccer game (289). In addition to the male accommodation, some Israeli men felt that there was too much fuss about pregnancy and that the women are being “spoiled” with all of this attention (296). The men saw some pregnancies where women gave birth and continued working right after. What they fail to understand is that every birth is different. Some births can be smooth and within a few hours while other births can be tedious and long. The accusation of the Israeli woman being “spoiled” was constructed from both genders because they both view Third World countries as people who can go through these experiences with less focus or fuss about them (296). Furthermore, when the Israeli men tried to understand pregnancy, they compared it to physical work they have done. One main example men try to compare pregnancy to is their work in the army. They undermine the importance of woman’s pregnancy by trying to make it seem easy because they went through something similar (293-4).

Overall, Inhorn did a great job providing in depth research about male participation during pregnancy. This was a well informing book for those who did not about male involvement during pregnancy. However, I wish Inhorn would have answered the question as to whether men should or shouldn’t be involved in pregnancy, but from her information that was given, and my personal observances of male involvement during pregnancy, it is a tricky question to answer. Many women believe that pregnancy is a woman’s field and no matter how much people try to involve the male partner, there will never be a true understanding of each other. A man cannot understand the physical demands that a woman’s body goes through. A woman cannot understand the loss of connection a male has during pregnancy, but they can be equal in other ways. The road to equality should be to start the journey of pregnancy together. Learning and growing at the same time would help cut down on the misunderstandings they have between each other.

Works Cited

Inhorn, Marcia Claire. <i>Reconceiving the Second Sex: Men, Masculinity, and Reproduction</i>. New York: Berghahn, 2009. Print.

Continue reading “Is There True Equality During Pregnancy?” →

The Trouble with Normal- A Review

Posted on February 24, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

As a child, flying on a plane is a terrifying endeavor. On my first trip to Orlando, Florida to see the attractions, there was a toddler, probably around the same age as my brother (two years old). I remember my brother smiling as he slept, the toddler in the other row screaming at the top of his lungs. My earplugs could not fit in my ears so I listened to him wail instead, culminating in the harsh whisper of his mother, “Why can’t you just act normal”. In this case, ‘normal’ seems to be fairly cut and dry; the mother wanted her son to be normal, which to her meant quient, well-behaved. Such ideas of normalcy are ingrained in us from an even earlier age as this, wehre non-normal means different, means troublesome. Michael Warner’s book, The Trouble with Normal: Sex, Politics, and the Ethics of Queer Life, he examines this idea of “normalcy” by focusing it with a lens of queer theory, and as he proceeds through his work he continues to narrow that lens, focusing it down on a narrative and demographic similar to his own. He begins by addressing sexual stigma in broad terms, each subsequent chapter moving from the idea of ‘normality’ in general to a narrowed focus on gay, lesbian, and queer individuals.

Part of the brilliance and also the complexity of Warner’s argument is that there is no one such argument. Throughout The Trouble with Normal, we see complete shifts not only from topic to topic, but also from argument to argument. However, I take Warner’s argument to be one of politics, or the application of normalcy which he brings up strongly as a theme in every one of his chapters. In his chapter “What’s Wrong with Normal?” I believe Warner’s clearest argument presents itself, “the politics I advocate” Warner says, “—a frank embrace of queer sex in all its apparent indignity, together with a frank challenge to the damaging hierarchies of respectability—” (Warner, 74). Warner’s ‘solution’ of sorts does not mess with the concept of integration, but rather the ‘embrace’ he mentions is one of understanding and a moral acceptance, rather than a physical acceptance into currently policy, structures, and politics. This semi-utopic ideal that he presents also comes with a more confrontational aspect, a ‘challenge’ to the way that respectability is perceived and its exclusion of queers and queer culture. For the purposes of this review, I will use the term ‘queer’ as Warner himself uniquely defines it, saying, “the term “queer” is used in a deliberately capacious way in this book, as it is much in queer theory, in order to suggest how many people can find themselves at odds with straight culture,” (38). Warner is using the word queer as a defining term to separate, in a way, those that have been eclipsed by straight culture in social and political matters. He then goes on to suggest that using the phrase ‘homophobia’ and ‘gays and lesbians’ are not sufficient, as it “blinds itself both to the subtlety of the oppressive culture and to the breadth of possible resistances,” (39). It is clear that Warner’s definition of the world queer hints to the subject of his main argument, the differentiation and potential intersection of two groups: straight culture, and queer culture. Currently a professor of English at Yale university, Warner has published several seminal works in queer studies, particularly the essay “Sex in Public,” co-authored with Lauren Berlant, and Fear of a Queer Planet. The Trouble with Normal was among many of Warner’s foundational works in queer theory. His social criticisms are heard through many periodicals in addition to his monographs. on Yale’s English department page, Warner lists his many interests, but then unifies them, saying, “One common thread across these fields is the way different social worlds are built up out of different circulating media and ways of reading or hearing” (English.yale.edu). His comment upon differing social worlds is particularly interesting, as Warner is an outspoken voice against marriage equality being the forefront of the ‘queer agenda’, believing it has negative implications, and that these moves towards normalcy “are bad not just for gays but for everyone,” instead calling for “a vision of true sexual autonomy”.

The main method employed by Warner in his analysis and progress of thought is engaging with other voices from queer theory, as well as publicized media events such as the Clinton impeachment. The diversity of resources he draws from not only extends the understanding of a mere layperson, but also brings back his theories to concrete social events that the reader knows about and might have experienced. As I stated earlier, Warner’s book is written in an editorial style a constantly evolving persuasion of his audience. He moves from one topic to the next without lingering long in one area. Structurally, it is divided into five main parts: “The Ethics of Sexual Shame”, “What’s Wrong with Normal?”, “Beyond Gay Marriage”, “Zoning Out Sex”, and “The Politics of Shame and HIV Prevention”. Material wise, he begins in a broad stroke with sexual shame, the politics of moral panic, hierarchies of shame, and he finally settles on the the ethics of queer life in preparing for the focusing of part two, discussing the idea of what “normal” is, gay and lesbian movement involvement and the ambivalence of identity, and the “normalized movement”. Focusing even deeper, his third chapter narrows to just gay marriage, explaining his reasons against it, and delving into the idea of “marriage without cost”. Chapter four narrows further into zoning out sex, the private and the public aspects of sexual acts as well as who becomes political targets. The conclusion of his work ends with the most focused aspect and demographic of all, those infected with HIV.

Warner’s writing can be dense, giving him the space to hit all of these issues, but as an overarching theme it is clear that the narrowing of his scope brings his topic from the general public, down to people of his own demographic, with similar narratives. Rather than describing and unwrapping all of Warner’s thoughts, I intend to focus on what I believe to be his greatest strength, as well as his main point (as indicated by his title)—normalcy.

Fittingly, the part of Warner’s monograph that I found the most persuasive was his second chapter, “What’s Wrong with Normal?”. Essentially, Warner associates humans’ obsession with the idea of what is ‘normal’ with the rise of statistics in the 19^th century. Until this point, nobody had been concerned with what was normal, only with their normative ideas about right and wrong. In assessing the validity of a lust for normalcy, Warner cites Mary Poovey, who leads him to wonder “why anyone would want to be normal”, alter saying “It is not normal to be a genius, die a virgin, or be well endowed. That [normalcy], again, tells us nothing about what one should want,” (54). Such a statement has the power to throw any reader back into their memories, searching for moments they disproved or accepted the idea that normal was, indeed better; it’s strength lies in its universal application. Focusing this down to the linguistic element, Warner continues, tracing the word normal back to the true English meaning: “meeting a set of normative standards,” (56). He asserts that in a language such a French, the world normal has retained more of its original connotation, “refer[ring] to the whole process of training, testing, and authorizing people as full members of society,” (56). Here, we see Warner backing up his claims about normalcy by taking things back; normal wasn’t even intended to mean what we think it means!

Warner offers us a clear definition of the term “queer”, that he uses, attempting to use it in a particularly “capacious way”—all encompassing and inclusive. That being said, I found that Warner’s argument tended to fall into the trap of writing and speaking into the gay and lesbian categories that he made it his goal to undermine. He originally speaks from this perspective of an upheaval and destabilizing of the societal norms we have put into practice. Even towards the beginning, though, it is clear that Warner doesn’t always focus on the queer movement as a whole, but attempts to encapsulate it all by referring to homosexuality. Page 72 shows us a clear example of this, “pragmatism in gay politics requires some sense of principle, and some accountability to gays and lesbians.” What is interesting about this is his isolation of gay and lesbian terminology, continuing on to state that an issue with the hugeness of the marriage equality movement is it’s blindsiding certain groups (trans* people, gender non-conforming, etc.) Other areas of the book include brief mention of these groups, but the lack of consistency on Warner’s part seems to undermine his argument against gay marriage.

Warner’s book, The Trouble with Normal, does an amazing job of covering a variety of topics from the ubiquity of sexual stigma to the prevalence and more focused stigma of having HIV/AIDS. Warner is able to successfully balance a variety of academic sources and their research with contemporary examples that everyone is familiar with, giving him the ability to speak topic-wise to a larger audience. However, due to the level of nuance and complex theories discussed by Warner, I would say that the ideal audience consists of those aware of the marriage equality movement, with some familiarity with the idea of stigma and how it pertains to queer theory. While he introduces his topics well enough for most anyone to read and understand, I believe the most understanding will come from a place of prior knowledge of the subject.

Warner, Michael. Michael Warner: Seymour H. Knox Professor of English, Professor of American Studies. Yale U. Web. 23 Feb 2016.

Warner, Michael. The Trouble with Normal. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998. Print.

Coming Out or Coming Home? Thoughts on The Coming Out Monologues

Posted on February 24, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

I want to begin this post by conjuring a HUGE *virtual* round of applause for Alex Kane (and the Queers & Allies as a whole) for an awesome event last night: I think I speak for most everyone when I say The Coming Out Monologues were hugely successful and should be a source of pride for everyone who participated in any way: way to go!

I can’t recall at time, here in Davidson or ever, where I have felt such a intense sense of community as I did last night in (of all places) the 900 room. I want to take this time to congratulate anyone who participated by reading, anonymously sharing, or just attending the event: take pride in the fact that you contributed, even if just in a small way, to something remarkable. To be honest, the warmth and inspiration I felt last night made me question Judith Butler’s claim that “If I claim to be a lesbian, I ‘come out’ only to produce a new a different ‘closet.’ The ‘you’ to whom I come out now has access to a different region of opacity” (Butler 309). Last night didn’t feel like we were constructing new closets, it felt like we were burning them down!

Last class Andres, Caroline, and I talked about the hypothetical genesis of our own feminist manifesto and how we would bring it to life. I think events like The Coming Out Monologues are essential to any sort of activism whether its in the name of a manifesto or something else entirely and, I encourage each and every one of you to go to events like this one when ever you have to opportunity because, I promise you, you don’t want to miss out!

Homosexuality is Not a Switch

Posted on February 24, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

In Borderlands, Anzaldua makes a surprsing statement on page 4 saying, “Being lesbian and raised Catholic, indoctrinated straight, I made the choice to be queer (for some it is genetically inherent).” The class discussed this statement as possibly meaning that Anzaldua “chose” to accept her queerness rather than “choosing” to be gay. Gayness as a choice is a discussion that used to be highly debated but is less debated in contemporary times, with society accepting that people can be born “not straight”. This led to a more detailed discussion outlining the problem with the binary system of either being born gay or born straight because this does not allow room for gender fluidity. In light of our class discussion, which will be resumed during a later class; I found this photograph on social media, which illustrates the idea of “choosing to be gay” as if it were simply a switch in the body.

Art through Words and Art through Pictures

Posted on February 23, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Today in class we analyzed Anzaldua’s Borderlands/La Frontera and Walker’s In Search of Our Mother’s Gardens. Both of these pieces did a wonderful job of discussing their own experiences with intersectionality. These authors were different than others because they wrote in a non/semi academic style, expressing a lot of literary creativity and imagery. My favorite example of vivid/artistic language from these two pieces was in In Search of Our Mother’s Gardens, when Walker is describing her mother’s love using her mother’s knack of gardening to say, “the woman who literally covered the holes in our walls with sunflower”. I thought that this was absolutely beautiful; the idea that her mother used everything she had and loved to help the family. I think it is important for language to create mental images in the reader’s mind. After procrastinating and wasting time on Buzz Feed I came across an interesting article about beautiful Instagrams that portray queer love. This Buzz Feed article reminded me of the “artistic” values found in the readings because the Instagram pictures are incredibly artistic and thought-provoking about how different love can look.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/skarlan/never-too-early-to-daydream#.eh4gJXm4e

Girls Can Enjoy Sex?

Posted on February 23, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

http://www.hercampus.com/love/sex/how-get-what-you-need-want-sex

In an article written recently for Her Campus, it gives advice to girls for how to get what they need and what they want from sex. Her Campus’s advice it to: first talk about sex with your partner, then figure out what you like and what you don’t like, and how it is normal and okay to have different preferences than your partner. I found this article intriguing because the idea of women enjoying sex and wanting sex as much as males is still somewhat new for society. I say this because when I saw the article I even blushed a little because society has taught girls that they shouldn’t discuss or talk about sex because it is “unlady like”. The idea of sex having the capacity to be pleasurable for women reminded me of Katz and how he discussed the human body serving as “a means towards procreation and production” because the “penis and vagina were instruments of reproduction, not pleasure”. This transition from sex being a biological necessity to it serving as an act of gratification served as a turning point for sexual relations. Today the exploration of sexual acts for pleasure can serve as an integral part for some relationships.

Like Father Like Son

Posted on February 23, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

The age old question of how significantly our parents influence who we are (and by extension who we grow up to be) has been long debated and disputed. In her piece In Search of Our Mother’s Gardens Alice Walker argues that our parents and those who come before us have a great impact on who we become and, furthermore, that we exist as marks of what they achieved. She says “Perhaps Phillis Wheatley’s mother was also an artist. Perhaps in more than Phillis Wheatley’s biological life is her mother’s signature made clear” (409). This sentiment reminded me of the very first slam poem I ever heard, “Knock knock” by Daniel Beaty. In the poem Beaty, speaking from his father’s perspective, says “the best of me still lives in you.” Both Walker and Beaty explore the idea that we exist as the legacies of our parents, of those that came before us. It is not an uncommon philosophy that humans, on a fundamental level, are working to leave their mark on this world and I am intrigued by the notion that one of the ways through which we try to do this, as evinced by Beaty and Walker, is through our children.

Book Review: Steel Closets

Posted on February 23, 2016February 23, 2016 by Spring 2016 Student

Anne Balay, in her book Steel Closets: Voices of Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Steelworkers, challenges prevailing notions of queerness, particularly that queer means male, wealthy, educated, and most likely monogamous. While in recent years, the United States has seen a newfound acceptance for gays, such acceptance is limited to those who fit this stereotype. Steel Closets is one of the few academic works to engage with working-class queers, specifically steelworkers. Balay investigates how the environment of their workspace influences not only how LGBT people interact with others, but also themselves with regards to sexuality—that is, if they come out or stay closeted and why, as well as conceptions of their own sexuality. Such a discussion quickly becomes complex, as it must take into account the mills as physical places, gender stereotypes, class differences, and many other things. Anne Balay does all of this through the voices of steelworkers themselves, since this work is built off of forty interviews, which ultimately makes this piece genuine, powerful, and meaningful.

As a queer woman with experience in blue-collar work herself, this book hit a particularly personal note. Many of her own experiences seep into the narrative—but only to benefit the overall work. With a background as an English professor at both the University of Illinois and Indiana University Northwest, she decided to investigate, from an academic vantage point, a world to which she could relate. First and foremost, her personal experiences shaped the initial questions she set out to answer. In her introduction, she says “I was immediately intrigued…I’m a lesbian, and I had previously worked as a car mechanic, so I had the experience as a woman in a traditionally male occupation—one that offers more dirt and danger than respect—which increased my interest in what interviews with steelworkers might revel” (20-21). But her personal experiences also shaped process. In fact, being a lesbian with experience in blue-collar work gave her a certain level of access, which enabled her to gather the information she needed. She admits, “often I got people to talk by sharing experiences I had had as a mechanic, and I encouraged them to continue by flirting, and by caring” (19). In essence, the type of access she had determined her ultimate method.

Since little scholarly work about working-class queers existed at the time she was writing, Balay had to go retrieve information herself. Steel Closets is built on forty interviews, and thus personal stories. In describing her methodology, she explains that her background in English in many ways shaped her approach. She explains, “I’m a listener, but also a reader” (19). After conducting these interviews, she went back and “sought out patterns, recurring themes, and significant words, phases, or images…I combed through the transcripts like a literary scholar searching for meaning” (19). Usually, she let the steelworkers take the initiative since she “didn’t want to sensationalize their experiences or shut down some stories by fishing for others” (19). She describes the steelworkers as “consummate storytellers who use narrative to construct and understand their lives…they are narratives that provide the tellers with agency, voice, and opportunity to understand themselves in the context of their worlds” (19). So, in some ways, her subjects made the collection of information easier. But finding gay steelworkers was in itself difficult. Balay says that initially she imagined “a snowball sampling,” where one queer steelworker would lead her to another (22). However, queer steelworkers were too closeted for even that. This led her on quite the escapade to find gays—frequenting bars, reaching out to gay and regional media, using newspaper columns, among other things.

The crux of her book focuses on the pattern of abuse of LGBT workers. Steelworkers “blame this hostility to gay people on two factors: the physical isolation of the mills and the hazardous and communal nature of the work” (15). In essence, these two factors shape how gay steelworkers interact with other workers and shape their opinions of their own sexuality. Hence, the first chapter sets the scene, illustrating the steel mill as “isolated, slow to change, stable” (41). She explores “what it is about the steel mills—the work, location, the people, the history—that makes them so inhospitable to queers” (34). The next chapter analyzes the separation, or lack of separation, of work and home life. Balay claims, “issues of personal and home life saturate the steel mill’s work culture, and how its presence affects the work, and the workers” (64). This openness has a particular impact on non-straight workers, since “being openly gay is discouraged, but taking steps to hide it is punished as well” (71). This in turn just further isolates many gay workers. Next, Balay more closely investigates why so many steelworkers are closeted and the consequences of remaining closeted. In the subsequent sections, she discusses male and female masculinity. In what is often called “a man’s world,” the expression of masculinity plays a huge role determining the overall experience of a particular worker. This very fact speaks to why the experiences of gay men and gay women are not necessarily parallel. Balay then goes on to further describe the dangers of the mills—very much a reality for all the individuals she interviewed. And in her final chapter, Balay discusses Unions and labor movements and some of the problems that exist—another vital part of these individuals’ experience as workers. As specific and small as this topic might seem, this book clearly has a broad scope.

Steel Closets is a powerful and meaningful piece concerning a topic often left out, even in academia. Anne Balay is careful in her analysis—trying not to make broad assumptions, being specific, and giving her informants agency in explaining their own experiences. But the greatest strength of this piece is how genuine it is. By giving her interviewees agency and letting the reader hear their voices as they “share their lives and stories” (13). Steel Closets becomes a candid account of a group of people who are too often left out of the narrative.

While Steel Closets has so many strengths, it is important to mention some of its weaknesses. Its greatest point of weakness is the small number of interviewees. Such a small pool begs the question of accuracy. Anne Balay does a great job of noting the experience of these forty individuals, but can one be confident in the consistency of this narrative across mills in the United States? The pool of interviewees also lacks diversity—particularly racial diversity. While she is upfront about this fact, the lack of different voices certainly hinders the work as a whole.

Overall, in her book Steel Closets, Anne Balay artfully provides us with an honest, accessible account of a voice historically ignored and passed over. This work is vitally important—even beyond the world of academia. While it is a piece of scholarly literature concerning a topic rarely investigated, it challenges our conceptions of queerness, specifically what it means to be queer. And it reminds us to always take into account the intersectionality of experience based on race, gender, class, and sexuality.

Works Cited

Balay, Anne. Steel Closets: Voices of Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender Steelworkers. Chapel Hill:

University of North Carolina Press, 2014. Print.

Introduction to Gender & Sexuality Studies

Author: Spring 2016 Student

Review of Playing with the Boys by Eileen McDonagh and Laura Pappano

Is Your Brain Pink or Blue: A Book Review of Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine

BetchesLoveThis, Feminist?

Broadcast Lives: Radio, Television, Idealism, and Reality for British Women

Book Review of Strip Club: Gender, Power, and Sex Work

Is There True Equality During Pregnancy?

The Trouble with Normal- A Review

Coming Out or Coming Home? Thoughts on The Coming Out Monologues

Homosexuality is Not a Switch

Art through Words and Art through Pictures

Girls Can Enjoy Sex?

Like Father Like Son

Book Review: Steel Closets