Stefan Moskowitz
Gonzalez
GSS 101
October 29, 2016

Singled out: how singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored and still live happily ever after

Until rather recently, the purpose of marriage was to reinforce or elevate one’s social status, to seek political power, to acquire property, to have the family name be carried on from generation to generation or any combination of these. Around the turn of the nineteenth to the twentieth century, Marriage started becoming more associated with love and emotional attachment, which helped establish the notion that a successful marriage was the most important relationship that one could have in their lifetime. Until then, relatives and friends often played a larger role in shaping the well-being and happiness of someone than their spouse, and very few were self-conscious of this (DePaulo, 22 & 23). As the purpose of marriage shifted, those who chose to participate in the institution obtained certain privileges that were unavailable to those who did not, a practice referred to as singlism. Because being single is not perceived as an inherent quality such as race or sexuality, single people are marginalized through productive power much more so than through repressive power, the ism much less frowned upon than others such as racism or sexism and because of this, many feel that it is acceptable to practice singlism explicitly and publicly.

The book Singled Out: how singles are stereotyped, stigmatized, and ignored and still live happily ever after by Bella DePaulo attempts to deconstruct singlism and to make it clear that it is completely unacceptable, especially in the 21st century when many other isms are very much frowned upon and when an increasingly larger portion of the US population is delaying marriage or is choosing not to marry at all. She makes a clear distinction between singlism from government that enables married people to pay fewer taxes and receive each other’s social security benefits, and singlism in “everyday life” where “marriage and coupling are indistinguishable” (DePaulo, 26). To do this she uses methods such as reanalyzing and debunking statistics that support the notion that marriage helps increase happiness and well-being through the identification of logical fallacies such as pointing out the distinction between correlation and causation, as well as recapping interviews of famous people where singlism is clearly present.

At the time the book was published, Bella DePaulo was a psychology professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where she is now a project scientist. Her past and current professional activities that are most relevant to the studies of single people and singlism include being the Chair of the Academic Advisory Board of the American Association for Single People, a fellow for the Council on Contemporary Families, a member of the Advisory Board for an organization titled Single-Woman.tv, a member of the Board of Advisors, Single Edition, and a Single Workers Topic Page Editor for the Sloan Work and Family Network. She also received the Excellence in Research award from the American Association of Single People in 2003 (DePaulo, 1 & 3). Some of her later publications on singlism address the psychology of modern discrimination, why some people view singlism as a legitimate prejudice, and the differences between how singles are perceived “compared to those who are in romantic relationships” (DePaulo). This last publication shows that DePaulo wants to actively broaden our understanding of singlism, to also include the discrimination of those who are not in a romantic relationship in addition to those who are not legally married.

To debunk the myth that marriage leads to greater happiness, DePaulo uses the analogy of a fictitious drug study that is flawed on many fronts. The four groups that the study examines include a set of individuals called the drug group that take the drug for the entire experiment, a no-drug group (who never take the drug), a group that begins taking the drug but voluntarily stops taking it who are given the title of no drug – intolerable, and one that begins taking the drug but have it taken away from them at a certain point who are labeled as no drug – withdrawn. The categories of people that DePaulo is representing are people who get married and stay married, people who do not marry , people who get married but then divorce and those who get married but later become widowed, respectively. At the end of the experiment, people from all groups answer the question “Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are these days?” “People who say they are “very happy” get a happiness score of 4; those who are “pretty happy” get a score of 3; people who are “not too happy” are assigned a 2; and people who say they are “not at all happy” are scored as 1. The average scores are 3.3 for the drug group, 3.2 for the no drug group, 2.9 for the no drug – intolerable group, and 2.9 for the no drug – withdrawn group.” It shows that taking the drug does not necessarily make people happier, as those in the no drug – intolerable group and those in the no drug – withdrawn group scored lower than those who never took the drug because either the drug was making them less happy or because they felt deprived from not taking it. The difference between the drug and the no drug group was one-tenth of a point, making it difficult to claim that the drug would make a significant difference in their happiness. Perhaps the people in the drug group were already happier before taking the drug than those in the no drug group, which would mean that the drug made no difference whatsoever (DePaulo, 30 – 33). It is also possible that the people in the drug group were convinced that the drug would make them happier and thus they became happier as a result, known as the placebo effect (medicinenet.com).

DePaulo also refers to the imposition of the mentality that singles only care about themselves by referring to when Chris Wallace interviewed Ralph Nader during the 2000 presidential race, asking him if Bush had a “more mature lifestyle” than Nader because he was married and had raised two daughters (DePaulo, 127). Even after Nader had replied that “he had contributed to the health and safety of children nationwide” through advocating for cleaner water, more nutritious food, safer cars, etc. as well as citing Bush’s own words by stating that “Until he was forty, he was young and irresponsible,” Matthews kept insinuating that because Bush was married and Nader was not, he was more mature (DePaulo, 127 & 128). The more implicit message behind this example, is that singlism distracted the focus of the interview, which should have instead been centered on the differences between the platforms, experience, and voting records of the candidates, all of which are directly relevant to the presidency.

Although DePaulo briefly mentions the differences in how single people with different social identities are treated (DePaulo, 5), there is a lack of examination of the intersectionality between these social identities such as with being single and being a person of color, being female, having a lower income and/or education level, etc. While I completely acknowledge that no ism is better than any other, I believe that only people of a more advantaged positionality have the privilege to believe that singlism is the cause of their oppression. The intersectionality between race, gender, and marital status is especially pervasive amongst black women. The controlling image of a single black woman as either being a dominating matriarch or being a welfare mom regardless of whether she chooses to have children who has a different combination of race and gender (Collins, 270). Although DePaulo did mention that Ronald Reagan aggravated the American public’s image of the Welfare Queen as president (DePaulo, 169), she misinterpreted it is as something discriminatory of single mothers, when in fact it was mainly targeted at single black women. She also neglected to address that one reason for why many black women are single is because black men have one of the highest incarceration rates out of any other group in the US. Leaving race aside, there is no discussion of how language shapes our perceptions of positionality. For example, there is no married variant to the male prefix “Mr.” but the distinction is present when it comes to female prefixes. Another distinction in how single women and single men are treated that the book does not consider is that society often perceives single women as much more lonely and needy than single men, in part because few women attended college or entered the labor force until the 1960’s.

Some of the texts that DePaulo references speak about singlism mainly as a symptom of sexism against women, particularly from the idea that single women attempt to disrupt the patriarchial model that women should help make men complete (Glick and Fiske 109), whereas Singled Out attempts to universalize the prejudice to also include men and single people regardless of their gender. Her lack of regard for gender in many chapters helps establish the notion that singlism should be dealt with in isolation to other forms of discrimination. Another text that DePaulo references addresses the questions of whether stigma awareness and analysis of past experiences that are specific to singlism help boost one’s self-esteem, particularly among women, ultimately concluding that the former has a slight positive effect on self-esteem but that the ladder does not (Morris). Several of Singled Out’s chapter titles are directed toward people of different social identities within the spectrum of single people. DePaulo thereby implies disagreement with these conclusions, as she uses stigma awareness to prove that single people can be just as successful and happy as those who are married or who are in a committed relationship. Jill Reynolds and Margaret Wetherell discuss the idea of compulsory heterosexuality, which cause many women to view being in a romantic relationship with a man as necessary (Reynolds and Wetherell, 490). While they frame this as something that mainly targets women, DePaulo expands this to include everyone by showing a study that concluded that 55 percent of unmarried people were not in a committed relationship nor did they want to be in one (DePaulo, 84).

While I completely agree that prejudice against single people should not be tolerated from any standpoint, I have a fundamental problem with DePaulo’s framing of the issue as an ism. Apart from some financial drawbacks, DePaulo was unable to prove that there are significant material effects to being single. Furthermore, there was no mention of subconscious implicit biases that are universally rooted in our society when it comes to the discrimination of single people, unlike those that cause many to favor some races and genders over others. Part of the reason for why this may be the case is because it is impossible to know whether someone is single just by looking at them in isolation. Some demographics that Singled Out would appeal to include anyone who has not ever been in a relationship and who feels self-conscious about it, anyone who is in a relationship but is not married and who is over a certain age, say 35, as well as anyone who is in a cohabiting relationship but who is not legally married. The book was published in the year 2006, at a time when people were marrying, having children, and entering the workforce at a later median age, which suggests that the stigma against single people was already on the decline. Today, this is even more so the case as rising living costs have made it harder for millennials to purchase housing near where they work (if in fact they do have a stable source of income), thus incentivizing them to live with their parents or with several roommates. Rising college attendance rates, increasing student debt, and more advanced degrees per capita have all helped exacerbate this trend.

References

DePaulo, Bella M. Singled Out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized, and Ignored and Still Live Happily Ever after. New York: St. Martin’s, 2006. Print.

DePaulo, Bella M. “DePaulo VITA May 2015.” belladepaulo.com N.p., n.d. Web. Jan. 2015. 27 Oct. 2016.http://www.belladepaulo.com/about-bella-depaulo/social-scientist-phd-harvard/

DePaulo, Bella M. “Scholarly Papers.” belladepaulo.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Oct. 2016. http://www.belladepaulo.com/singles-research-writing/scholarly-papers/

“Definition of Placebo Effect.” medicinenet.com. N.p., 13 May 2016. Web. 29 Oct. 2016. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=31481

Collins, Patricia Hill. “Controlling Images of Black Women’s Oppression.” N.p., n.d. 29 Oct. 2016.

Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. “An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Belevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality.” www.sanchezlab.com. N.p., Feb. 2001. Web. 29 Oct. 2016. http://www.sanchezlab.com/pdfs/GlickFiske1.pdf

Reynolds, Jill, and Margaret Wetherell. “Discursive Climate of Singleness: The Consequences of Women’s Negotiation of a Single Identity.” http://fap.sagepub.com. N.p., 11 Sept. 2003. Web. 29 Oct. 2016. http://fap.sagepub.com/content/13/4/489.full.pdf+html

Morris, Wendy Lynn. “Effects of Stigma Awareness on the Self-Esteem of Singles.” http://libraprod.lib.virginia.edu. University of Virginia Library, 2005. Web. 29 Oct. 2016. http://libraprod.lib.virginia.edu/catalog/libra-oa:5282

“Our dreams have become so small.” Karma Chávez concludes her book with this quote from trans activist Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore. Chávez’s Queer Migration Politics, is an attempt to widen the horizons of our current possibilities when it comes to both LGBTQ activism and migration politics. Chávez begins by outlining a brief history of the American political climate towards both members of the LGBTQ community and migrant populations. She points out that in the midst of the AIDS epidemic, George H. W. Bush signed “what was known as ‘homosexual exclusion’” which essentially meant that those who were HIV/AIDS positive, were not permitted to migrate into the U.S.[1] At the same time that this multitude of issues was bubbling up in the American consciousness, so was the movement of LGBTQ activists to try and bring attention to the AIDS epidemic, and in doing so, gave “greater significance in defining a national gay and lesbian political agenda focused on rights and inclusion.”[2] As Deborah B. Gould points out, the AIDS epidemic shaped the “emotional habitus of the LGBTQ community and essentially led activists of the time to, “suppress more confrontational rhetoric and activism that it might compromise their social acceptability.” [3] Thus, the LGBTQ activists of the early nineties were forced to work within existing American frameworks. In the same way that queer activism became centered around “respectability” of members of the LGBTQ community, migration politics in the United States has also become centered around who is “worthy” of citizenship. Chávez in her work, points out how legislation like the DREAM Act, excludes migrants who do not fall into these categories of exceptionalism. Furthermore, so much of migration politics rhetoric has centered around upholding familial values, standards that could only be upheld by heterosexual couples. So as both groups attempt to grapple with standards of respectability and the current discriminatory climate in America, Chávez offers unique perspectives on how these two groups may be able to coalesce to overturn current power dynamics, and create a higher standard of living for everyone.

Before we dig into the content of Chávez’s argument, it is important to have some understanding of the author. Karma R. Chávez is a former assistant professor of Communication Arts and Chican@ and Latin@ Studies at University of Wisconsin-Madison, and now teaches at the University of Texas- Austin. In her introduction, she notes her sense that queerness, “not only refers to a kind of critique and to non- or anti- normative genders and sexualities, but it also implies what is possible for making lives livable.”[4]  One of the reasons I really loved this book is Chávez’s acknowledgment of multiple identities that people can assumed, particularly of those she observes in her work. Also, how these intermeshed identities take shape in the form of politics and experience. Chávez employs a mainly qualitative approach. This is evident by her accounts in Arizona and the comparison she draws between CDH and Wingspan- two different activist organizations. She also makes many references to laws and different activist responses in this piece, signifying her knowledge of legal frameworks and the social push back to these laws.

In order to understand her argument fully, we must understand where this book falls in the greater scholarly conversation. Her work is grounded in the larger field of migration studies, which expands on the important thinking done by feminist scholars on gender and migration. She points towards scholars such as Oliva Espín, Mary Romero, Pierette Hondagneu- Sotelo and Lynn Fujiwara, who shifted the focus from the male migrant experience, to the experiences of women, “negotiating the US immigration system.” [5] However, their work still left out the experiences of queer migrants. Eithne Luibhéid, she notes, tries to bring to light the experiences of queer migrant populations, and many other scholars expand on this work in the late 1990s and early 2000s.[6] Chávez notes that even with the increasing scholarship around the aforementioned issues,  few scholars have really investigated “how migration politics and activism are connected to queer politics and activism.”[7] However, scholars such as Dean Spade, Jasbir K. Puar, and Lisa Duggan, who all examine queerness in a more global context, have contributed greatly to Chávez’s theory and thinking.[8] Chávez’s studies also pay homage to the scholarship of Monisha Das Gupta and Amy L. Brandzel, whose work is dedicated to rethinking the notion of belonging and citizenship for queer migrants. [9]

It is drawing on the work of other scholars and her own observations, that Chávez makes a compelling argument about queer migration policies.  She comes out boldly stating that we need to redraw the lines of the groups we belong to, and create more space for difference in the groups that make up our identity. She states that by rethinking belonging, “individuals reveal that the divisions upheld and promoted within hegemonic constructions of belonging that put, for example, racialized minorities against sexual minorities are not natural.” [10] Essentially, Chávez uses the majority of this book to express that as humans we exist within a set of interlocking oppressions. Thus, oppression that exists in one group should be the concern of another group of oppressed people. She explains that LGBTQ migrants “are invisible within both movements because the migrant rights movement places undue emphasis on heteronormative family relationships and the LGBTQ movement focuses on partners of US citizens.” [11] Thus, it becomes crucial to rethink affiliation with either group, unless these two groups can coalesce to make life better for all. Chávez uses the majority of the second chapter to highlight one particular activist, Yasmin Nair, who is a queer, migrant, woman of color theorist. She works to expose discriminatory measures towards migrants based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and the how the economic system in America exploits the immigrant population. [12]  Nair rejects the idea of promoting individual stories from both the LGBTQ and migrant community, and argues that putting one LGBTQ migrant’s personal story on display in a sense exploits the human and becomes a question of, “whose story can be melodramatically effective?”[13]  Chávez uses Nair as a prime example of an activist who is attempting to rewrite the boundaries of identity and create more expansive areas of belonging.

Since the majority of Chávez’s book is how to effectively build these coalitions across difference, Chávez takes a more in depth look at coalitions around migrant and LGBTQ rights that have already been established. Chávez asserts an interesting analysis of “coming out of the closet” and “coming out of the shadows”- the rhetoric that is normally associated with LGBTQ rights and migrant rights, respectively. She notes that many migrant rights groups have employed the tactic of “coming out as undocumented” not only as an act of empowerment, but also as a rhetorical reference to many LGBTQ activists, who have pronounced their unapologetic pride in their identities. However, as Chávez points out, this idea “reduces the work of challenging marginalization to the private individual.”[14] In essence, the work of individuals, while rhetorically effective in many cases isn’t enough.

She then turns her focus towards examining the relationship between two Arizona groups, Wingspan and Coalición de Derechos Humanos (CDH), an LGBTQ activist organization and a migration rights organization respectively. She highlights the challenges and benefits of forming this coalition across difference. For one, these organizations can pool their resources together to increase the effect of each group. However, Chávez notes the natural challenges of coalescing two seemingly disparate efforts. Wingspan is described as predominantly white whereas CDH is predominantly Latino. Chávez comes to realize that the CDH ends up doing the majority of grassroots organizing in this coalition, citing Geovanna (Wingspan’s breast health educator at the time) who noted, “white people in her organization use large words but neglect action.” Moreover, Chávez contends that CDH doing more grass roots organizing is a matter of race and class.[15] Chávez further highlights the challenges of coalescing across difference by noting the CDH’s alignment with the Catholic Church in Arizona. The Catholic Church is in partnership with CDH because of the Christian belief to welcome the stranger and help the poor. However, the Catholic Church is also very outspoken about their beliefs towards homosexual couples. The pre-existing alignment presents challenges for the tenuous alliance between CDH and Wingspan.[16] Although this coalition is a good start towards rethinking the boundaries of belonging, Chávez indicates that it is obviously flawed.  Furthermore, she mentions that the coalition barely exists now or only when it is politically expedient, saying, “the existence of a relationship with Wingspan is simply assumed… when it is necessary to respond to something or to take action.” [17]

Overall, I appreciate the contents and arguments of the book. Chávez is certainly a dreamer. The biggest strength of her argument is her dedication to seeing possibilities instead of barriers, in the face of difference. As she puts it, “Dissonance fosters acute awareness, though sometimes without clear direction for movement from the awkward tension.”[18] However, one major weakness I see in her argument is the precariousness of the coalition she seeks to build. Her research is focused on the work of two organizations, who in three years after she completed her research in 2007, were no longer in a working relationship. Moreover, when these two organizations were working together, there was debate about whether or not they were a coalition in “name only.” [19] Chávez does a great job of pointing out the problems within this seemingly flimsy coalition, but does not offer other examples of how to coalesce more effectively.  This book is mainly meant to be read by other scholars and activists, who strive to make universal human rights a reality for all people. It should be read by activists that are looking to expand their platforms; but since there is no example of effective coalition building, her utopian thinking does not seem to lend itself to practical solutions.

Overall, I was a huge fan of this book and the lengths Chavez went to write it. While I remain frustrated by the lack of concrete examples of effective coalitions in this realm, I believe that this ineffectiveness is more likely due to the current political climate in America. Yes, most of her argument is impractical and requires utopian thinking, but Chávez’s bold declaration that we can be much more than we have been, and that our boundaries of belonging can be more expansive is an inspiring thought. Queer Migration Politics is a proud pronouncement of ways the oppressed can reclaim their power, in an American culture that demands “respectability” and “worthiness” to access. However, the beginning of this pronouncement must begin in the grass- “the dirt and concrete where people live, work, and play.” [20] As she puts it, “I hope Queer Migrations can be part of what changes the size of our dreams.” [21] I do too.

[1] Karma R. Chávez, Queer Migration Politics: Activist Rhetoric and Coalitional Possibilities (Champaign: University of Illinois, 2013), 1

[2] ibid, 2

[3] Deborah B. Gould, Moving Politics: Emotion and ACT UP’s Fight Against AIDS (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2009), 63-64

[4] Karma R. Chavez, Queer Migration Politics: Activist Rhetoric and Coalitional Possibilities (Champaign: University of Illinois, 2013), 6

[5] ibid, 10

[6] ibid, 11

[7] ibid, 12

[8] ibid, 12

[9] ibid, 13

[10] ibid, 27

[11] ibid, 45

[12] ibid, 52-54

[13] ibid, 62

[14] ibid, 96

[15] ibid, 139

[16] ibid, 136

[17] ibid, 143

[18] ibid, 136

[19] ibid, 140

[20] ibid, 7

[21] ibid, 150

While the LGBT movement has gained more support over the last few decades, some groups in the movement still experience discrimination because of the white cisgender groups in the frontlines leaving other marginalized groups in their shadow. Inter groups suffer from intersectionality because they fall under two or more social categorizations in today’s heteronormative society. These groups are often stigmatized and have multiple issues in society. The marginalized groups in LGBT movement often look for a ways they can feel natural and comfortable. The social stigma is so strong that they usually need to get away for a period of time in order to feel confident in their bodies.

Jason Whitesel, an assistant professor of women’s and gender studies at Pace University, enters the stigmatized world of fat gay men in his book Fat Gay Men: Girth, Mirth, and the Politics of Stigma (2014). Whitesel becomes member of a fat gay men group called Girth & Mirth. His ethnographic study of big gay men is mostly about the Ohio chapter of Girth & Mirth club but it also discusses about the issue more widely. It is a group that provides fat gay men a safe space and support. Stories of members joining when looking for a suicide hotline number for example are really powerful. Whitesel argues that the fat gay men are indeed stigmatized in the LGBT movement because of their size and it is the main reason for their feeling of being excluded. The big men face an awful lot of discrimination and stigmatization in their everyday lives because of their large size. He explains how big gay men are often excluded from the gay community spaces because they are perceived as disgusting and unattractive because of their size. The ideal gay male body according to Whitesel is muscular and skinny. It is a big emotional hit for big gay men that they are not accepted in their own sexuality group because of their size. Whitesel also attends two national fat gay men events with the Girth & Mirth group. One of them is called the super weekend and it is held at Cabana in Oklahoma. The other event is national Convergence in Minnesota. Both of these events have a same idea of creating a safe space for big gay men in our homophobic and sizist society. They need an environment where they are not judged because of their size or sexuality.     Fat gay men are compared to other gay groups throughout the book and even though it ranks at the very bottom of the gay groups, it has a lot of similarities with a group called the bears. Bears are big gay men but their identifying feature is their hairy body type. Whereas fat gay men are seen as emasculate, bears are hairy big guys but are seen as “real men.” Whitesel mainly talks about fat gay men who are part of the Girth & Mirth group but he also talks about other fat gay men who attend the two events I mentioned earlier. Providing safe space is Girth & Mirth’s main purpose and it attacks the stigma of big men by usually gathering over coffee. The dining club method is one of the most effective ways to provide that safe space to club members because eating is the big men’s mutual interest. This works especially well because big men are usually judged when they go out to eat.

Whitesel attends two very different events as a part of his research. First he attends an event called Super Weekend. The event’s purpose is to create a fun and safe environment for big gay men or as Whitesel refers to them as Chubs. The Super Weekend is meant to make everyone feel welcome. The event is held in the largest gay resort in the Southwest in Oklahoma. The other event he attends is a national Convergence on Minnesota. The Convergence is more about promoting the big men’s status in society but it also has similar tendencies to the Super Weekend but on a different scale. Whitesel attended to both of these events as a member of Girth & Mirth club. At Super Weekend he did not reveal his researcher status because of the large group of people. He was perceived as a chaser, a term that the big men give to skinny gays who are attracted to them. At the Convergence he only told some people who he got comfortable with, that he was doing research.

The Super Weekend emphasized chubs’ role as a sexual objects. At the Cabana big men are encouraged to feel just as attractive as any other normal man, because they do not have the pressure of thin-obsessed gay community surrounding them. Partly because of this, the Super Weekend is a hypersexualized event, as we can see from a competition for the doorknob award. The doorknob award is given to the person who has had sex with the most people during the weekend. Things like this make the Super Weekend controversial. It is beneficial for big men to be able to get a weekend away where they can enjoy themselves and have fun both socially and sexually, but it can be over sexualized as well. A similar idea applies to their pool parties during the Super Weekend. When you can feel comfortable because you are with a group of big guys, you are more likely to take your shirt off as well.

The other event that Whitesel participated in was the annual Convergence of big men. It was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and had a larger number of participants than the Super Weekend. The Convergence’s purpose was mainly to improve big gay men’s status in the society. It also offered carnival atmosphere, but it was a lot more official than the Super Weekend. Whitesel talks how the class distinction among the participants at Super Weekend and Convergence was obvious. At the Super Weekend men were encouraged to wear comfortable clothes and the Cabana was a lot cheaper than Hotel Marriott, where the Convergence was held. The clothing manufacturers also bring out their big men clothing lines to the Convergence. The Convergence also offers big gay men an opportunity to feel included in events reminiscent of a prom night or a homecoming dance, because the Convergence has similar types of events. Whitesel talks how these men being able to live these events, even though it happens years after high school, has a significant role in their lives. The Convergence attempts to help big men to assimilate to heteronormative middle class living when the Super Weekend is all about fun and comfort.

Whitesel argues that big gay men are a fun loving group just as any other LGBT group and that they are facing a countless amount of criticism and difficulties only because of their physical size. His research goal was to give voice to big men, and he draws ideas from previous studies on both, fat studies and queer studies field. He uses especially Erving Goffman’s studies of the stigma and how stigmatized people try to find social places that provide comfort. Whitesel own status as a homosexual male helped him to fit in the Girth & Mirth group. He was considered as a chaser and this created some difficult situations as he was getting attention from big men.

Overall, Whitesel tries to give big gay men a voice, since they are often discriminated and silenced in the thin-obsessed gay community. Among gay male categories fat gay men fall all the way to the bottom, this is why many big gay men try to escape the discrimination to bears group. It is important to remember that our society is really size discriminating and even heterosexual big men experience discrimination because of their size. Whitesel does good job describing the injuries that big gay men suffer because of their size and sexuality. Because of their discrimination, big gay men have to come out twice and that is what some of the big men refuse to do. They refuse to join these clubs because the members usually embrace their size and are not shamed of it at all. Sizism and homophobia are problems of our society and big gay men have to face this adversity daily.

 

Works Cited

Whitesel, J. (2014). Fat Gay Men: Girth, Mirth, and the Politics of Stigma. New York, NY: NYU Press.

On February 17, 1983, a female student at the University of Pennsylvania reported that she had been carried upstairs during a fraternity party and raped by five or six men, sparking outrage across college campuses. The victim eventually confessed the rape to her professor, Peggy Reeves Sanday, inspiring Sanday to investigate the societal context which normalizes gang rape. Fraternity Gang Rape is the culmination of Sanday’s investigation of sex, brotherhood, and male privilege on college campuses and provides valuable insight into the persistence of dominant masculinity in brotherhood perceptions of rape. Sanday divides her examination of fraternity gang rape into two parts; the first part analyzes the events leading to the gang rape of her former student in order to flesh out themes of male dominance underlying fraternity practices of “working a yes out.” Twenty-six years later, the campus environment described in Fraternity Gang Rape maintains its privileging of white males, promoting reluctance to accuse rapists and shaming victims as asking for it, evidenced by the lenient sentencing of Brock Turner.
Sanday’s anthropological approach to examining fraternity party culture illustrates the attitudes guiding brothers and party goers; young women engage in heavy drinking or drugs, pressured to gain social acceptance, which fraternity brothers interpret as consent to brutal sexual victimization. In order to assemble various perspectives, reflective of the campus environment, Sanday trained students to interview guests and fraternity members at fraternity parties over a two-year period. These interviews were recorded and then transcribed, to reflecting typical conversations about sexual aggression among fraternity brothers. Analyzing this web of interviews, Sanday reconstructs the fraternity environment through the perspectives of victims, fraternity brothers, and party goers, exposing the social prevalence of a rape inducing sexual subculture during a period in which fraternity gang rape was secluded from public discourse.
Sanday meticulously details the gang rape of her former student, revealing the sexual subculture of fraternities which perpetuate male dominance through rape. Using interviews with the victim and two witnesses, familiar with the fraternity, Sanday ascertains that the victim, who she refers to as Laurel, was heavily incapacitated after taking hits of LSD and engaging in heavy drinking the night she was raped. At the end of the party, Laurel was taken to a room upstairs and to crash and was later raped by five or six fraternity members. According to girls who witnessed conversations among brothers, fraternity brothers initially boasted about their sexual conquest of Laurel. When directly confronted by one of the girls, the brothers claimed that rape could not have transpired since Laurel was unable to say no, viewing her state of mind as irrelevant. As a result, Sanday asserts that fraternal discourse perpetuates misogynistic ideology, positioning members to blame Laurel for failing to resist their sexual advances. Analyzing the experiences of girls familiar with the environment of fraternity parties, Sanday illuminates an environment constructed to break down female resistance and ensnare vulnerable women. Reflecting on their experiences at fraternity parties, these women recalled being assaulted with stares and subjected to disparaging remarks under the fraternal practice of “riffing on women.” Unraveling the multiple experiences of being plied with alcohol and drugs and repeatedly pressured for sex, Sanday deciphers the practice of “riffing on women” as a mechanism employed to sexually abuse women and celebrate the power of the brotherhood (p. 46).
Arguably, Sanday provides her most powerful insight into fraternity life through her analysis of a “highlights sheet,” a humorous version of meeting minutes written by fraternity brothers. The sheet serves as an uncensored account of the gang rape, as told by the brothers, reflecting their true attitudes regarding sexual abuse of women. Sanday deconstructs the euphemisms employed by the brothers, who bragged about the success of a new “little sisters program,” referring to the raping young, vulnerable women, and expressed optimism in recruiting “little wenches,” or future victims, providing insight into sexist fraternal discourse (p. 66). Exploring the fraternal ideology is crucial to understanding how fraternities normalize gang rape as a valid form of sexual expression. Sanday exposes the misogynistic fraternal discourse underlying the “good Samaritan rift,” mentioned in the highlights sheet, in which brothers praised one another for having sex with a victim drifting in and out of consciousness (p. 67). Evaluating the minutes, Sanday asserts that gang rape is perpetuated through public displays of masculinity and fraternal bonds, seen in the brotherly pride associated with various forms of “riffing.” Carefully examining direct quotations from the perpetrators, Sanday frames sexual aggression as prioritizing fraternal sexual prowess over displaying compassion for a vulnerable peer.
Describing three cases of fraternity gang rape reported at various universities, Sanday uncovers the same values of misogyny and male privilege underlying the 1983 UPenn gang rape. Drawing from student interviews of fraternity brothers, as well as personal revelations from fraternity brothers, Sanday expands upon the persistence of dominant masculinity through phallo-centric ideology across fraternity circles. Centered exclusively around channeling sexual aggression, fraternity parties allow brothers to search for victims and emerge at the top of the social power structure, united in brotherhood. Women who drink are seen as flirtatious and “asking for it” in the eyes of fraternity brothers, and victims are shamed for making a mistake. Sanday asserts that these experiences, similar to the gang rape of Laurel, are an extension of male privilege, allowing fraternity brothers to seek empowerment through inebriating and then sexually victimizing women, later denigrating these women for allowing themselves to be alone with a group of drunk men.
In the second part of her book, Sanday implicates the fraternal environment in constructing a sexual subculture which normalizes sexual coercion. One of the most shocking fraternity practices Sanday outlines is the marking of drunk women with colored dots to signal their sexual availability to other brothers. Practices such as these help fraternity members to “work a yes out”, by targeting the most vulnerable party goers to coerce into sex. Instead of retreating after their sexual advances are denied, fraternity brothers feel encouraged to push copious amounts of drugs and alcohol onto women until they obtain a yes. However, as Sanday reveals, a yes to the brothers doesn’t mean verbal consent; instead fraternity members push until the victim is drifting out of consciousness or nearly comatose and cannot say no. Strategizing together, fraternity brothers aid one another in their sexual endeavors, using excuse sexual aggression under the privilege of the brotherhood.
Referencing student interviews with fraternity brothers, Sanday uncovers phallocentric ideology undergirding party gang rape, privileging the brothers to take advantage of compromised women. In these interviews, fraternity brothers admitted to working a yes out of hesitant women, organizing parties “get ‘em drunk and go for it” (p. 115). Illuminating inside fraternal discourse, Sanday uncovers the prevailing ideology which blames women for what happens after they are drunk. In response to the UPenn gang rape many brothers blamed the victim, asserting “that girl just totally brought everything onto herself” (p. 119). One perpetrator mocked the situation, remarking “she was responsible for her condition and that just leaves her wide open…so to speak” prompting laughter among the brothers (p. 119). Examining these direct statements from fraternity brothers demonstrates the explicit callousness of members towards the suffering of victims. Verbal coercion, Sanday asserts, provides an escape only if victims have the physical and mental strength to do so, ultimately placing the responsibility of rape onto the victim.
Sanday also illuminates egregious initiation rituals, such as those requiring pledges to lie to lie in feces and vomit, demonstrating the construction of abusive social order. Using various tapes of initiation rituals and incidents reported by brothers, Sanday highlights the aims of pledging a fraternity to destroying any aspects of vulnerability and emotional accessibility, which normalizes the subjugation of women. Throughout initiation rituals, pledges are ridiculed for their femininity, whilst constructing the fraternity as a source to alleviate anxiety over insufficient masculinity. As a result, a template for masculine identity is forged through granting pledges the ability to abuse party women under the shared power of the brotherhood. This “radical alteration of consciousness” constructs a callous attitude towards women, normalizing sexual behavior and discourse that subject women (p.192).
Fraternity Gang Rape was a landmark publication, serving as one of the first comprehensive accounts of the abusive sexual behaviors encouraged by fraternity parties. Sanday’s graphic portrayal of aggressive sexual attitudes and practices of fraternity members gained widespread public attention; illuminating fraternal ideology centered around the sexual exploitation of women. As a result, the unprecedented nature of her analysis left Sanday with little discourse to engage with. However, Sanday mentions vigorous debate over the roots of sexual violence, analyzing cross-cultural studies in order to invalidate the argument that gang rape can be excused as the manifestation of the “explosive, biological nature of male sexual expression” (p. 61). Referencing anthropological investigations of matrifocal and patriarchal societies which argue against the existence of a single gender template, Sanday positions the social influences of fraternity gang rape within a global context, demonstrating the silencing practices of sexist fraternity practices, which largely subject female college students to unwanted sexual interactions. Sanday’s monograph is powerful, exposing the grotesque, secluded behaviors of fraternities which construct gang rape as normal behavior, providing a framework upon which universities can construct effective policy. However, Sanday undercuts the significance of her work by ignoring race in her accounts of fraternity gang rape. Taking the accounts of minority women and fraternity brothers would lend to a more expansive construction of male privilege and help universities to better work against fraternity gang rape culture.

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus. New York: New York University Press, 1990. Print.