15,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
Today, in Western countries, we are seeing both the fragmentation of the gender binary (the division of the social world into two and only two genders) and its persistence. Multiple genders, gender-neutral pronouns and bathrooms, X designations, and other manifestations of degendering are becoming common, and yet the two-gender structure of our social world persists. Underneath the persistence of the binary and its discriminatory norms and expectations lurks the continuance of men's power and privilege. So there is the continued need to valorize the accomplishments of women, especially those of denigrated groups. This succinct and thoughtful book by one of the world's foremost sociologists of gender shines a light on both sides of this paradox - processes in the fragmentation of gender that are undermining the binary and processes in the performance of gender that reinforce the binary, and the pros and cons of each. The conclusion of the book discusses why we haven't had a gender revolution and how degendering would go a long way in creating gender equality.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 154
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright Page
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Terms
1 How Gendered People, Organizations, and Societies Are Constructed
Ethnomethodological insights into gender construction
Doing gender
Gender as performativity
Constructing gendered structures
Gender regimes
Gender as a social institution
Conclusion
2 Fragmentation of the Gender Binary
Multiple genders
Gender-neutral bathrooms
Intersex identifiers
Intersex athletes
Menstruating and birthing men
Battle of the pronouns
Doing research without the gender binary
Pros and cons of fragmenting the gender binary
Conclusion
3 Persistence of the Gender Binary
The myth of female and male brains
Gendered research
Standpoint theory
Hegemonic masculinity and the “new” masculinities
The #MeToo movement
Gender-based violence
Sexuality and the binary
Transgender and the binary
Pros and cons of binary persistence
Conclusion
4 Why Haven’t We Had a Gender Revolution?
The politics of identity
Borderlands
The politics of empowerment
The gender frame
Towards gender equality
Producing gender-equal behavior
Conclusion
References
Index
About the Author
End User License Agreement
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
iii
iv
vi
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
The New Gender Paradox
Fragmentation and Persistence of the Binary
Judith Lorber
polity
Copyright Page
Copyright © Judith Lorber 2022
The right of Judith Lorber to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published in 2022 by Polity Press
Polity Press
65 Bridge Street
Cambridge CB2 1UR, UK
Polity Press
101 Station Landing
Suite 300
Medford, MA 02155, USA
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-4435-6
ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-4436-3(pb)
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021938629
by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NL
The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.
For further information on Polity, visit our website: politybooks.com
Acknowledgments
I want to thank Jonathan Skerrett, Polity editor, for suggesting this book. I’d also like to thank Susan Farrell, Kathleen Gerson, and Patricia Yancey Martin for their reviews at various stages and the anonymous reviewers of the first draft for their astute comments. Much of the book was written during the various levels of the COVID-19 lockdowns. That should have given me the gift of time, but anxiety over the pandemic often ate away at my ability to concentrate and write. I thank friends and East End Temple Sisterhood members for their psychological support.
The inspiration for the book came from J. Lorber (2018), “Paradoxes of Gender Redux: Multiple Genders and the Persistence of the Binary,” in J. W. Messerschmidt, P. Y. Martin, M. A. Messner, and R. Connell (eds), Gender Reckonings: New Social Theory and Research, New York: New York University Press.
Some material in the book is adapted from J. Lorber (2005), Breaking the Bowls: Degendering and Feminist Change, New York: W. W. Norton, and these articles and reviews: “Using Gender to Undo Gender: A Feminist Degendering Movement,” Feminist Theory 1 (2000): 101–18; “Constructing Gender: The Dancer and the Dance,” in J. A. Holstein and J. F. Gubrium (eds), Handbook of Constructionist Research, New York: Guilford Publications, (2008); “Review Essay: Gendered and Sexed Brains,”’ Contemporary Sociology 40 (2011): 405–9; “Review Essay: Why Do Bathrooms Matter?,” Contemporary Sociology 41 (2012): 598–602.
New York
March 31, 2021
Introduction
Recently, I received an email urging everyone to use gender-neutral pronouns – they, their, them. A longtime proponent of doing away with gender, I nonetheless found myself resisting the erasure of my identity as a woman, even at the cost of maintaining the gender binary that I believed was the source of women’s oppression. So I refused. I want to be identified as a woman – she, hers, her. I want women to be visible. Others responded similarly to the email and to an article in Scientific American (Saguy and Williams 2019a), especially women of color. They noted the need for visibility and recognition of accomplishments as well as identifying continued areas of discrimination (Hanna et al. 2019). At that point, I realized that one of the reasons for the persistence of the gender binary is the necessity of the continued valorization of women, especially those of denigrated groups.
Today, in western countries, we are seeing both the fragmentation of the gender binary (the division of the social world into two and only two genders) and its persistence. Multiple genders, gender-neutral pronouns and bathrooms, X designations on official documents and other manifestations of degendering are increasingly prevalent, and yet the two-gender structure of most social worlds persists.
The main gender paradox I explored over twenty-five years ago in Paradoxes of Gender (Lorber 1994) focused on the rhetoric of gender equality made meaningless by a total system that rendered women unequal and exploited. Today’s new gender paradox is a rhetoric of gender multiplicity undermined by a continuing bi-gendered social structure that supports continued gender inequality. Underneath the seeming erasure of a rigid gender binary and its discriminatory norms lurks the persistence of men’s power and patriarchal privilege.
When the concept of gender emerged in the early 1970s, it presented a contrast with the prevailing belief in the biological underpinnings of the behavior of women and men. The concept of gender in this book rests on social construction – the contention that gender differences are made through socialization of children and maintained through surveillance of adults (West and Zimmerman 1987). The norms of a binary society coalesce into a gender regime supported by familiar interaction and legal strictures.
People construct gender for themselves and those they interact with by doing or performing gender. These processes institutionalize as gender structures (Martin 2004). Gender as process and structure are both complementary and in conflict. They are complementary in that process creates and maintains structures. They are in conflict because structuration delimits process. With the simultaneous fragmentation and persistence of the gender binary, process is not changing structure.
Politically, gender fragmented long before the current popularity of multiple genders. Under liberal feminism in the 1970s, the pressure was to treat women and men alike. In order to do so, women were allowed and encouraged to enter men’s professions, such as law and medicine, and to run for political office. Today, in the United States, the ceilings still being broken by women include space travel, combat, and being elected president. Other countries have chosen women heads of state.
The problem with this route to gender equality was that women were emulating men but men were not emulating women. The unspoken implication of gender neutrality was that women deserved the rights and privileges men had as long as they acted like men (Mackinnon 1987; Saguy, Williams, and Rees 2020). On the other hand, many of the most successful legal cases in the United States gave men rights, such as child custody, without their having to demonstrate women’s capabilities.
The counterargument to women’s perfect equality with men was to focus on women’s special qualities, particularly nurturance and emotional empathy. Women’s bodies and sexualities, which had been downplayed by liberal feminism, came to the fore. Radical feminism valorized women’s behavior and experiences and, in women’s studies, explored women’s history and sources of oppression in different gender regimes. Politically, the focus was on women rather than gender per se.
It soon became clear that women were not a global category of people. Intersectionality broke them up by racial and ethnic identity, social class, occupation, sexuality, relationship status, place of residence, age, bodily integrity, and so on. Each of these groups of women had its own political battles to fight, some of which involved allying with the men of their group rather than always envisaging them as the enemy. (See Lorber 2012 for a review of feminist theory and politics.)
In addition to intersectional fragmentation of gender, people today are finding different ways of doing gender, further fragmenting the binary. Multiple genders may seem revolutionary, but they are not changing the binary structure of most gender regimes. They are personal identities, not legal or bureaucratic statuses. Politically, their individualistic rebelliousness does not encourage a unified gender-resistant movement (Lorber 2018). The binary persists and is bolstered by much normative gendered behavior.
After a review of the premises of the social construction of gender, this book will explore both sides of the current paradox of gender – processes in the fragmentation of gender that are undermining the binary and processes in the performance of gender that reinforce the binary’s persistence. After that, I’ll explore why we aren’t having a gender revolution.
My focus and sources are mostly western societies with relatively egalitarian and individualistic gender regimes. Looking at similar issues in societies with different gender regimes would of necessity find different imbalances between fragmentation and persistence of binary genders.
Terms
While there are many variations in nomenclature, the terms I will be using are:
sex – referring to internal and external anatomy, hormones, chromosomes, and variations of each. Terms are male, female, intersex (having mixtures of the biological components of sex).
sexuality – referring to physical attraction and sexual behaviors, emotional involvement, relationships. Terms are heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual.
gender – referring to identity, self-presentation, performance, legal status. Terms are man, woman, cisgender (gender identity assigned at birth), transgender man (man assigned female at birth), transgender woman (woman assigned male at birth), non-binary (no gender), genderqueer (neither woman nor man, various combinations of gender presentation).
1How Gendered People, Organizations, and Societies Are Constructed
We live in a world that is divided by gender in every way. Gender is a constant part of who and what we are, how others treat us, and our general standing in society. Our bodies, personalities, and ways of thinking, acting, and feeling are gendered. Because we are gendered from birth by naming, clothing, and interaction with family, teachers, and peers, our identity as a boy or girl, and then as a man or woman, is felt as, and usually explained as, a natural outcome of the appearance of our genitalia, the signs of our biological sex. The assumption is that it is biology that produces two social categories of different people, “females” and “males,” and that it is inevitable that societies will be divided along the lines of these two categories and that the people in those categories will be different.
It’s a twentieth-century doxa – that which “goes without saying because it comes without saying” (Bourdieu 1977: 167; emphasis in original). Despite its taken-for-grantedness, the search for the biological sources of gender differences fuels the glut of scientific studies on genetic, hormonal, or other physiological origins for all sorts of gendered behavior (Jordan-Young 2010; Van den Wijngaard 1997). Actually, there are very few gender differences, as meta-analyses of compilations of those studies has shown. One research team (Zell, Krizan, and Teeter 2015) had 106 meta-analyses, incorporating data from 12 million people. Most of the gender differences they found were small, with few that were medium (11.9%), large (1.8%), or very large in size (0.8%).
Yet we live in societies structured by gender differences, so, since they are not natural, they need to be constructed. Gender divides people into contrasting social categories, “girls” and “boys” and “women” and “men.” In this structural conceptualization, gendering is the process and the gendered social order the product of social construction. Through interaction with caretakers, socialization in childhood, peer pressure in adolescence, and gendered work and family roles, people are divided into two groups and made to be different in behavior, attitudes, and emotions. The content of the differences depends on the society’s current culture, values, economic and family structure, and past history. The resultant gendered social order is based on and maintains these differences. Thus there is a continuous loop-back effect between gendered social institutions and the social construction of gender by individuals (West and Zimmerman 1987). In societies with other major social divisions, such as race, ethnicity, religion, and social class, gender is intricately intertwined with these other statuses (West and Fenstermaker 1995). Despite these crosscutting statuses, the contemporary western world is a very bi-gendered world, consisting of only two legal categories – “female” and “male.”
For individuals, gender is a major social status that is intersected with other major social statuses (racial and ethnic group, social class, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) and so gender is actually not a binary status, even though it is treated as such legally, socially, and in most social science research. On an individual basis, gender fragments; from a societal perspective, gender overrides these multiplicities and simply divides people into two categories.
The binary divisions of gender are deeply rooted in every aspect of social life and social organization in most societies. Although the binary principle of gender remains the same, its content changes as other major aspects of the social order change. The gendered division of work has shifted with changing means of producing food and other goods, which in turn modify patterns of childcare and family structures. Gendered power imbalances, which are usually based on the ability to amass and distribute material resources, change with rules about property ownership and inheritance. Men’s domination of women has not been the same throughout time and place, but varies with political, economic, and family structures. In the sense of an underlying principle of how people are categorized and valued, gender is differently constructed throughout the world and throughout history. The prevailing tenet is that men dominate women, although the extent of domination fluctuates.
As pervasive as gender is, because it is constructed and maintained through daily interaction, it can be resisted and reshaped by gender troublemakers (Butler 1990). The social construction perspective argues that people create their social realities and identities, including their gender, through their interactions with others – their families, friends, colleagues. Gender is a constant performance, but its enactment is hemmed in by the general rules of social life, cultural expectations, workplace norms, and laws. These social restraints are also amenable to change, but not easily, because the social order is structured for stability (Giddens 1984). Many aspects of gender have been changed through individual agency, group pressure, and social movements. But the underlying binary structure has not.
Gender is built into the western world’s overall social system, interpenetrating the production of goods and services, kinship and family, sexuality, emotional relationships, and the minutiae of daily life. Gendered practices have been questioned, but the overall legitimacy of the gendered social order is deeply ingrained and currently bolstered by scientific studies on supposed inborn differences between females and males. The ultimate touchstone is pregnancy and childbirth. Procreative and other biological differences are part of the constructed gendered social order, which is so pervasive that the behavior and attitudes it produces are perceived as natural, including women’s greater predisposition to nurturance and bonding. This belief in natural – and thus necessary – differences legitimates many gender inequalities and exploitations of women.
As the concept of gender has developed in the social sciences, it has moved from an attribute of individuals that produces effects in the phenomenon under study (e.g., men’s and women’s crime rates, voting patterns, labor force participation) to a major building block in the social order and an integral element in every aspect of social life (e.g., how crime is conceptualized and categorized is gendered, political power is gendered, the economy and the labor force are gender-segregated and gender-stratified). Feminist social scientists have mapped out the effects of gendering on daily lives and on social institutions and have produced reams of data on how these processes maintain inequality between women and men.
