CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS Special Issue of Gender & Society: Gender, Disability, and Intersectionality

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

Special Issue of Gender & Society: Gender, Disability, and Intersectionality

Guest Editors:  Nancy A. Naples (University of Connecticut), Laura Mauldin (University of Connecticut) and Heather Dillaway (Wayne State University)

In the last three decades, disability scholarship in feminist studies appeared with increasing frequency, developing from a nascent intervention in intersectional analyses to a field with special sections in several professional associations.  In a 2013 essay for American Quarterly, pioneer feminist disability studies scholar Rosemarie Garland-Thomson argues that disability studies is a field that is no longer emerging, but has indeed already emerged. This is evidenced by various special issues focused on disability scholarship appearing in women’s and queer studies journals, such as Hypatia, Feminist Formations (formerly NWSA Journal) and Gay and Lesbian Studies Quarterly. In 2011, the Disability and Society Section of the American Sociological Association was also formally established. While progress within the discipline of sociology has been made in accounting for disability, it is often not included alongside race, gender, and class in feminist sociological scholarship. Thus, while interdisciplinary feminist scholars have been at the forefront of the new field of disabilities studies, disability remains under-theorized and underrepresented in gender scholarship and sociological scholarship more broadly.  The aim of this special issue is to begin to fill this gap in sociology and advance the conversation between sociology and gender scholars who have been at the forefront of feminist disability studies. Thus, this special issue will provide a forum for feminist scholars working within the sociology of gender to consider disability from an intersectional framework. Informed by black feminist analysis of black women’s lives, the conceptualization of intersectionality enables a complex understanding of the ways in which race, gender, class and sexuality among other dimensions of social, cultural, political and economic processes intersect to shape everyday experiences and social institutions. The special issue will offer a unique opportunity for feminist disability studies scholars to demonstrate the ways in which intersectional feminist scholarship is central to the field of disability studies and how analyses attentive to disability advance the intersectional feminist project in sociology.

With the focus on Gender, Disability, and Intersectionality, topics to be considered include, but are not limited to biomedicine, sexuality studies, education, discrimination, human rights, and comparative and international studies.

All papers must make both a theoretical and empirical contribution.         

Completed manuscripts, due October 1, 2017, should be submitted online to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/gendsoc and should specify in the cover letter that the paper is to be considered for the special issue.

For additional information, please contact any of the guest editors for this issue:

Nancy A. Naples (University of Connecticut) nancy.naples@uconn.edu.

Laura Mauldin (University of Connecticut) laura.mauldin@uconn.edu.

Heather Dillaway (Wayne State University) dillaway@wayne.edu.

 

 

 

 

 

Becoming “War Buddies”: Underestimating Insider Status

By Heather Mooney

Mooney_blog

I’ve learned very quickly that it is harder than I thought to be an insider, though in completely unexpected ways. My dissertation explores the social construction of deviance and rehabilitation in total institutions through a case study of a therapeutic boarding school from the “troubled teen” industry. This industry loosely consists of various private facilities for reforming deviant adolescents including boot camps, wilderness therapy programs and last chance ranches. Many scholars warned me that even though I am an insider (I myself was a “troubled teen”), I am likely to be an outlier. Scholars assumed that I was unlike other fellow reform school alum (PhD candidate, single, childfree, Buddhist, activist). I was cautioned many times not to assume my thoughts, feelings, and experiences were similar to those of the participants. Understandably, it took me by surprise to discover during the early phases of data collection that I am very much an insider – almost to the textbook definition.

While certain variables make my narrators and me unique, the overarching sentiments echo my personal experience more than I had been advised. From the very start of data collection I connected with my contributors in many ways because sharing the experiences of attending non-traditional school and the therapeutic activities brought a strong sense of solidarity. Despite the similarities, we also identified notable differences: following reform school, pursuits of education, and in family relations. Through shared intense institutional experiences, bonding occurs in ways that outsiders may not fully understand. This has led to the unanticipated challenge of becoming friends with strangers – at a rapid pace.

Advantages of Insider Status

My insider status has been essential to studying this hidden population; however, I miscalculated how integral my position would become. I especially underestimated the value of the shared experience (attending a total institution) that engendered this insider status. I assumed that having attended the program would allow for shared language and an intimate understanding of the institution’s structure. As the interviews quickly progressed, I was not prepared to be treated like a “war buddy”. Nor was I prepared for the emotional affinity with my narrators after having mostly listened and talked for hours. I attribute this rapid rapport building to the deep and long-lasting impact the academy has had on each of us and what a rare opportunity it is to share this with a fellow former student.

The Sway of Insider Status

At the end of my first interview, I stepped back to reflect. I hadn’t laughed so hard in months as I had done while wrapping up that first dialogue. Since then, conducting my interviews has been like the high school reunion I’ve never had – though in slow, detailed motion. By the end of our interviews, I feel like a peer more than a researcher. I’m learning that often my shared understanding has inhibited further probing or explanation that an outsider would have had to question for clarity. Due to this I will likely query narrators again for further details on a few themes and ask even more in depth questions going forward. Some contributors have asked to stay connected via social media and all have expressed appreciation in my investment in documenting these experiences. Most of the narrators expressed heartfelt gratitude as our interview had been the first time in years, for some a decade, that they had been able to openly reflect,  be heard, and understand the impact the therapeutic boarding school has had on their life. In taking this moment to recognize that though the boundary between friends and participants is blurry, I would rather continue to break it down than enforce it.

Subverting Research Power Dynamics

In my dissertation, I “study up”; the narrators are mostly upper middle class whites. The average cost of similar private troubled teen programs is somewhere around $5,000 per month. This is in stark contrast to my previous research in which I “studied down” interviewing recently incarcerated homeless men. In this study, being an insider allows me to get closer to my narrators realities and shift at least some of the inherent research dilemmas that feel too perennial in their nagging truths about exploitation.  With my dissertation I seek a more equitable exchange in my position of power and social status, stemming from a variety of mostly ascribed sources. For instance, I encourage the narrators to select their own pseudonym to frame themselves as they see fit. I will send transcriptions and final drafts to be reviewed and commented on by them prior to publications. This allows narrators the opportunity to participate in and respond to interpretations and analyses.

These steps ensure that my status does not impose a unilateral framework and understanding onto the narrators’ experiences. There can be a false sense of insight provided by the insider status coupled with the powerful role of researcher that must be tempered by continued avenues for the narrator’s engagement and oversight of their truth (data). It is my hope that my position as an insider will foster innovative and inclusive methodological tactics that give inclusive opportunities to narrators throughout the research process in hopes of bringing parity to the generosity entrusted and given by the contributors to share these oft untold tales in ways that ideally benefit us all.

Heather Mooney is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Sociology at Wayne State University in Detroit, MI specializing in inequality studies. She is currently working on her dissertation about adults who were former “troubled teens” discussing their experiences and perceived impact of attending a therapeutic boarding school. In her spare time, she is committed to ending mass incarceration, enjoys exercising, and practices Tibetan Buddhism.

Trump and the Politics of Fluid Masculinities

By James W. Messerschmidt and Tristan Bridges

In the 1950s, a collection of sociologists and psychologists (which included, among others, Theodor Adorno) wrote The Authoritarian Personality. They were attempting to theorize the type of personality — a particular psychology — that gave rise to fascism in the 1930s. Among other things, they suggested that the “authoritarian personality” was characterized by a normative belief in absolute obedience to their authority in addition to the practical enactment of that belief through direct and indirect marginalization and suppression of “subordinates.” While Adorno and his colleagues did not consider the gender of this personality, today gender scholars recognize authoritarianism as a particular form of masculinity, and current U.S. president Donald Trump might appear to be a prime illustration of a rigid and inflexible “authoritarian personality.”

Yet Trump’s masculinity avoids a direct comparison to this label precisely because of the fluidity he projects. Indeed, the “authoritarian personality” is overly fixed, immutable, and one dimensional as a psychoanalytical personality type. Sociologists understand identities as more flexible than this. Certain practices of Trump exemplify the fluctuations of masculinity that illustrate this distinction, and the transformations in his masculinity are highly contingent upon context. While this is a common political strategy, Trump’s shifts are important as they enable him to construct a “dominating masculinity” that perpetuates diverse forms of social inequality. Dominating masculinities are those that involve commanding and controlling interactions to exercise power and control over people and events.  These masculinities are most problematic when they also are hegemonic and work to legitimize unequal relations between women and men. Here are a few examples:

First, in his speeches and public statements prior to being elected, Trump bullied and subordinated “other” men by referring to them as “weak,” “low energy,” or as “losers,” or implying they are “inept” or a “wimp.” (“Othering” is a social process whereby certain people are viewed and/or treated as somehow fundamentally different and unequal.) For example, during several Republican presidential debates, Trump consistently labeled Marco Rubio as “little Marco,” described Jeb Bush as “low energy Jeb,” implied that John McCain was a “wimp” because he was captured and tortured during the Vietnam War, and suggested that contemporary military veterans battling PTSD are “inept” because they “can’t handle” the “horror” they observed in combat. In contrast, Trump consistently referred to himself as, for example, strong, a fighter, and as the embodiment of success. In each case, Trump ascribes culturally-defined “inferior” subordinate gender qualities to his opponents while imbuing himself with culturally defined “superior” masculine qualities. This pairing signifies an unequal relationship between masculinities—one both dominating and hegemonic (Trump) and one subordinate (the “other” men).

A second example of Trump’s fluid masculinity applies to the way he has depicted himself as the heroic masculine protectorof all Americans. This compassion may appear, at first blush, at odds with the hegemonic masculinity just discussed. For example, in his Republican Convention speech Trump argued that he alone can lead the country back to safety by protecting the American people through the deportation of “dangerous” and “illegal” Mexican and Muslim immigrants and by “sealing the border.” In so doing, Trump implied that Americans are unable to defend themselves — a fact he used to justify his need to “join the political arena.” Trump stated: “I will liberate our citizens from crime and terrorism and lawlessness” by “restoring law and order” throughout the country — “I will fight for you, I will win for you.” Here Trump adopts a position as white masculine protector of Americans against men of color, instructing all US citizens to entrust their lives to him; in return, he offers safety. Trump depicts himself as aggressive, invulnerable, and able to protect while all remaining US citizens are depicted as dependent and uniquely vulnerable. Trump situates himself as analogous to the patriarchal masculine protector toward his wife and other members of the patriarchal household. But simultaneously, Trump presents himself as a compassionate, caring, and kind-hearted benevolent protector, and thereby constructs a hybrid hegemonic masculinity consisting of both masculine and feminine qualities.

Third, in the 2005 interaction between Trump and Billy Bush on the now infamous Access Hollywood tour bus, Trump presumes he is entitled to the bodies of women and (not surprisingly) admits committing sexual assault against women because, according to him, he has the right. He depicts women as collections of body parts and disregards their desires, needs, expressed preferences, and their consent. After the video was aired more women have come forward and accused Trump of sexual harassment and assault. Missed in discussions of this interaction is how that dialogue actually contradicts, and thus reveals, the myth of Trump’s protectorhegemonic masculinity. The interaction on the bus demonstrates that Trump is not a “protector” at all; he is a “predator.”

Trump’s many masculinities represent a collection of contradictions. Trump’s heroic protector hegemonic masculinity should have been effectively unmasked, revealing a toxic predatory heteromasculinity. Discussions of this controversy, however, failed to articulate any sign of injury to his campaign because Trump was able to connect with a dominant discourse of masculinity often relied upon to explain all manner of men’s (mis)behavior — it was “locker room talk,” we were told. And the sad fact is, the news cycle moved on.

We argue that Trump has managed such contradictions by mobilizing, in certain contexts, what has elsewhere (and above) been identified as a “dominating masculinity” (seeherehere and here— involving commanding and controlling specific interactions and exercising power and control over people and events. This dominating masculinity has thus far centered on six critical features:

1) Trump operates in ways that cultivate domination over others he works with, in particular rewarding people based on their loyalty to him.

2) Trump’s dominating masculinity serves the interests of corporations by cutting regulations, lowering corporate taxes, increasing military spending, and engaging in other neoliberal practices, such as attempting to strip away healthcare from 24 million people, defunding public schools, and making massive cuts to social programs that serve poor and working-class people, people of color, and the elderly.

3) Trump has relied on his dominating masculinity to serve his particular needs as president, such as refusing to release his tax returns and ruling through a functioning kleptocracy (using the office to serve his family’s economic interests).

4) This masculinity is exemplified through the formulation of a dominating militaristic foreign policy (for example, U.S. airstrikes of civilians in Yemen, Iraq and Syria have increased dramatically under Trump; the MOAB bombing of Afghanistan; threats to North Korea) rather than engaging in serious forms of diplomacy. Trump has formed a global ultraconservative “axis of evil”— whose defining characteristics are kleptocracy and dominating masculinity — with the likes of Putin (Russia), el-Sisi (Egypt), Erdogan (Turkey), Salman (Saudi Arabia), Duterte (Philippines) among others.

5) So too has this dominating masculinity had additional effects “at home” as Trump prioritizes domestically the repressive arm of the state through white supremacist policies such as rounding-up and deporting immigrants and refugees as well as his anti-Muslim rhetoric and attempted Muslim ban.

6) Trump’s dominating masculinity attempts to control public discourse through his constant tweets that are aimed at discrediting and subordinating those who disagree with his policies.

Trump’s masculinity is fluid, contradictory, situational, and it demonstrates the diverse and crisscrossing pillars of support that uphold inequalities worldwide. From different types of hegemonic masculinities, to a toxic predatory heteromasculinity, to his dominating masculinity, Trump’s chameleonic display is part of the contemporary landscape of gender, class, race, age and sexuality relations and inequalities. Trump does not construct a consistent form of masculinity. Rather, he oscillates — at least from the evidence we have available to us. And in each case, his oscillations attempt to overcome the specter of femininity — the fear of being the unmasculine man — through the construction of particularized masculinities.

It is through these varying practices that Trump’s masculinity is effective in bolstering specific forms and systems of inequality that have been targeted and publicly challenged in recent history. Durable forms of social inequality achieve resilience by becoming flexible. By virtue of their fluidity of expression and structure, they work to establish new pillars of ideological support, upholding social inequalities as “others” are challenged. As C. J. Pascoe has argued, a dominating masculinity is not unique to Trump or only his supporters; Trump’s opponents rely on it as well (see also sociologist Kristen Barber’s analysis of anti-Trump masculinity tactics). And it is for these reasons that recognizing Trump’s fluidity of masculinity is more than mere academic observation; it is among the chief mechanisms through which contemporary forms of inequality — from the local to the global — are justified and persist today.

*Originally posted on Democratic Socialists of America.

James W. Messerschmidt is professor of sociology and chair of the Criminology Department at the University of Southern Maine. He has written widely on masculinities, and his most recent book is Masculinities in the Making.

Tristan Bridges is assistant professor of sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. With C. J. Pascoe, he recently co-edited the anthology, Exploring Masculinities.

Gender & Society: Table of Contents, Volume 31, No. 4

GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 31 No. 4
Read this issue on SAGE: http://gas.sagepub.com/content/current

Articles
Working for Redemption: Formerly Incarcerated Black Women and Punishment in the Labor Market
SUSILA GURUSAMI

Intersectionality and Credibility in Child Sexual Assault Trials
AMBER POWELL, HEATHER HLAVKA, AND SAMEENA MULLA

Punctuating Accountability: How Discursive Aggression Regulates Transgender People
STEF SHUSTER

Making a Career: Reproducing Gender within a Predominately Female Profession
LaTONYA TROTTER

Engaging Diverse Men: An Intersectional Analysis of Men’s Pathways to Antiviolence Activism
TAL PERETZ

Book Reviews
Single Mothers in Contemporary Japan: Motherhood, Class, and Reproductive Practice
By Aya Ezawa
KRISTEN SCHULTZ LEE

Expanding the Gaze: Gender and the Politics of Surveillance
Edited by Emily van der Meulen and Robert Heynen
PAULEEN CULLEN
CRISTIN O’ROURKE

Men at Risk: Masculinity, Heterosexuality and HIV Prevention
By Shari L. Dworkin
SANYU A. MOJOLA

Pathways, Potholes, and the Persistence of Women in Science: Reconsidering the Pipeline
Edited by Enobong Hannah Branch
LAURA KRAMER

Styling Masculinity: Gender, Class, and Inequality in the Men’s Grooming Industry
By Kristen Barber
JENNY LENDRUM

The Unseen Things: Women, Secrecy, and HIV in Northern Nigeria
By Kathryn A. Rhine
CARINA HECKERT
OPHRA LEYSER-WHALEN

Power Interrupted: Antiracist and Feminist Activism inside the United Nations
By Sylvanna M. Falcon
ELISABETH JAY FRIEDMAN

Caring for a Living: Migrant Women, Aging Citizens, and Italian Families
By Francesca Degiuli
LUISA ROSTI

Women Doing Life: Gender, Punishment, and the Struggle for Identity
By Lora Bex Lempert
ANGELA M. MOE

Moving Beyond the Gender Symmetry Debate: Ongoing Opportunities for IPV Research

By Wendi Johnson

One cannot begin to enumerate the number of articles, papers, and book chapters that have addressed the gender symmetry debate within the literature on intimate partner violence (IPV).  Yet the academic sparring between family and feminist scholars has led to a circular argument with no clear winner and has ultimately hindered progress on IPV research.  Thus, this entry will not be another weighing in of the debate, but instead I will focus on providing several suggestions to IPV researchers. While most of my comments are likely to reflect my quantitative orientation, by no means are they meant to exclude qualitative researchers.  I do not claim credit for any of these ideas, as they have been introduced previously in other outlets.  Rather, this is meant to simply serve as a reminder to myself and other IPV researchers of areas that could benefit from scholarly attention. Continue reading “Moving Beyond the Gender Symmetry Debate: Ongoing Opportunities for IPV Research”

Two legal sexes aren’t enough: Why governments should recognize non-binary bodies and identities

By Lal Zimman

Virtually every form we fill out that serves to identify us – whether administered by governmental, educational, medical, economic, or social institutions – asks for sex or gender. In most cases, the only recognized options are female and male. Thanks to the work of intersex and transgender activists, there is increasing recognition that individuals may possess bodies and/or identities that fall outside of the normative categories of female and male. However, governmental and legal institutions largely remain resistant to official recognition of non-binary sexes or genders, instead requiring all citizens to be categorized as female or male despite the well-documented diversity of gender and sex. This resistance can be seen in recent cases in which governments have rejected bids to create a third legal sex category, as France did last month and Germany did in 2016.

To many people, the concept of legal sex seems like an intuitively obvious system that reflects information about an individual’s identity. This sense of intuition, however, comes from the naturalization of biological sex as a simple binary, when in fact it is a complex web of characteristics that can be aligned in many different ways. The notion that there are only two sexes relies on the erasure of intersex bodies, i.e. those that show distinctive or ambiguous physiological characteristics that are neither normatively female nor normatively male. Such erasure happens culturally – by pretending intersex bodies don’t exist – and medically – by operating on or removing ambiguous organs so that a child’s body appears more normatively female or male. The insistence that there are only two sexes is simply not supported by the observation of biological diversity among humans.

Christopher Hutton a scholar of language and the law, has argued that legal sex presents itself as a descriptive category, but in practice serves normative functions.1 In other words, we are meant to think of legal sex as simply reflecting a natural, universal reality in which every individual is obviously and unproblematically female or male. Ultimately, however, one’s assignment to a legal sex category creates both restrictions and obligations in terms of access to spaces, activities, and even other forms of recognition – as when states restrict allowable names based on legal sex.2

Gender_neutral_bathroom_sign
By sarahmirk (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons

Someone whose identity documents are seen as being “in conflict” with their sex, gender identity, or gender expression can face numerous, and often quite serious, consequences. They may be unable to travel freely; unable to access safe and appropriate housing, shelters, medical care, or public facilities like bathrooms; unable to access certain spaces where identification is required for entry, like venues where alcohol is served; unable to engage in certain kinds of commercial transactions, such as using a credit or bank card or purchasing goods that require proof of age; and at particular risk during interactions with the state such as being pulled over or detained by police, being jailed or imprisoned, or navigating immigration systems. Someone whose identification outs them as trans, gender non-conforming, or intersex may routinely have to choose between personal safety and taking part in everyday, life-sustaining activities. Some may be unable to publicly articulate that identity at all because of the risks involved.

These points are often used to support the argument that transgender people shifting from one binary gender role to another should be permitted to change their legal sex, ideally without medical requirements such as hormones or surgery. But this logic applies with at least as much force for those living outside of the sex/gender binary all together.

In most cases, legal sex is, indeed, formulated in terms of sex – that is, physiology rather than social identity. In places where legal sex can be changed at all, individuals are generally required to alter their bodies in dramatic ways, including sterilization, in order to gain access to a new legal sex.3 The key assumption here is that biological differentiation is more important than social differentiation, and that the state is in the business of categorizing people on the basis of sexual phenotype rather than social identity.

Given how important the body is for arguments about legal sex, it is particularly striking when states refuse to acknowledge intersex individuals, who are born with bodies that cannot be straight-forwardly categorized as either female or male. If legal sex is supposed to reflect biological difference, and we know that intersex bodies exist, why are the differences between intersex bodies and normatively female or male bodies not worth capturing? What danger is there in recognizing the full range of what nature provides? How can we justify burdening this population – or any population – by denying them identification documents that match their bodies, identities, or presentations?4

Surely the key to answering to this question is the fear that legal recognition might reveal other cultural gaps, creating a demand for greater social, as well as legal, awareness and affirmation. If a state accepts that intersex bodies exist, and that they are not simply malformed versions of female or male bodies, how can it justify the non-consensual modification of those bodies in order to fit the binary system? How can educational institutions insist that only two genders exist, both through the way students are treated and in the material they are taught? How can trans people be denied the right to change their documents or required to achieve a certain degree of physical conformity in order to do so if the law recognizes that gender is more complicated than we’ve been led to believe? And if those with indisputably non-binary bodies can be recognized as legally different from non-intersex people, how can the state refuse to acknowledge those with non-binary identities, who are as deeply affected by lack of proper documentation as any other trans or intersex individuals?

The primary issue here is what role states will take in the transformation the gender binary is undergoing. While purporting to remain neutral in the face of radical social change, governments who perpetuate binary systems for assigning legal sex actively erase intersex bodies and delegitimize trans identities. The creation of more categories is not an instance of governments creating or pushing for social change, but rather reflecting the reality already occupied by many of the people it purports to serve. Legal sex has real consequences for individuals, and reforming it is a matter of safety, of equal participation in public life, and of individuals’ access to legal recognition and dignity. As long as legal sex exists, we need more than two categories.

Lal Zimman is an Assistant Professor of Linguistics and Affiliated Faculty in Feminist Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is also General Editor of Oxford University Press’s Series in Language, Gender, and Sexuality. His research is broadly focused on the linguistic practices of transgender speakers, in which he employs
a range of qualitative and quantitative methodologies. He has published on the homonormativity of the coming out narrative genre (Gender & Language, 2009), the construction of biological sex in trans men’s use of gendered body part terminology (Queer Excursions, 2014, Oxford; Journal of Homosexuality, 2014), and the complex role of embodiment in the acoustic characteristics of the voice (Journal of Language & Sexuality, 2013; Language and Masculinities, 2015, Routledge). In 2014, he published a co-edited volume, Retheorizing Binaries in Language, Gender, and Sexuality with Oxford University Press.

1 Hutton, Christopher (forthcoming). Transgender jurisprudence, legal sex, and ordinary language.  In Evan Hazenberg & Miriam Meyerhoff (eds.), Representing Trans. Wellington, New Zealand:  Victoria University Press.

2 Several countries limit names for infants so that they are “gender appropriate,” including Denmark [link: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/07/03/mf.baby.naming.laws/index.html%5D, Iceland [link: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/04/168642200/a-girl-fights-to-be-called-by-her-name-in-iceland-suing-government%5D, and Hungary [link: http://www.nytud.hu/oszt/nyelvmuvelo/utonevek/%5D.

3 See, for instance, Lee, R. (2015). Forced sterilization and mandatory divorce: How a majority of Council of Europe member states’ laws regarding gender identity violate the internationally and regionally established human rights of trans people. Berkeley Journal of International Law 33(1):114-152.

4 I am being intentionally broad here in speaking of bodies, identities, or presentations out of recognition that not all intersex people want their intersex status reflected in their legal sex. Individuals should be able to choose which legal sex category will make them safest, affirm their dignity, and allow them to participate fully and comfortably in social life. For some, that means using a non-binary sex category.

Why Women’s Money Means Less

By Nadina L. Anderson

Is men’s money different than women’s money? How can we tell?

While men make more money than women, most scholars assume the physical dollars and cents are interchangeable. A woman’s dollar looks and feels the same as a man’s dollar. However, in practice, people exchange money in particular patterns.

Within families, husbands and wives earmark income to pay for different costs: rent, food, kids, parties, savings, etc. They decide whether to pool their income or leave them separate, when to spend versus when to save, who should manage joint resources, and how joint resources should be used. Together these decisions form a system or strategy of money management that couples use to survive and succeed in daily life. I argue that these strategies tell a revealing story about gender, money, and power.

I study how couples share money in Ukraine. By spending nine months conducting interviews with couples in Kyiv, I uncovered several patterns of exchange in families. In my paper for Gender & Society, I focus on the practices of thirty-four working class couples—describing how they spend, save, and share money. I discover that women’s money is not exchanged the same way as men’s money.

Managing money in Ukrainian families

 For poorer couples, earning money generally does not give Ukrainians a sense of pride or accomplishment. Men in particular feel exploited and betrayed by their employers and the labor market, making 40-50 cents an hour. Even in full-time positions, men cannot pay for their family’s most basic necessities.

Women try to save their husbands from feeling depressed or disheartened. They actively bolster men’s spirits by managing men’s money in ways that position their husbands as providers. However, this does not mean that husbands out-earn their wives. Out of the thirty-four couples in my study, twenty-two wives earn the same or more than their husbands. However, men’s money is spent and saved differently than women’s money, regardless of relative income.

I discover three main ways money becomes “gendered” in the home. These practices make men feel more like breadwinners, even when both partners contribute roughly equal amounts towards family expenses:

Placement and access: Men overwhelmingly bring their money home in cash, making it accessible to other family members. Women often keep their money separate: hidden in a bank account or kept in a secret envelope in a closet. This preserves the idea that women’s money is “private.” Men give money to women and ask them to pay bills, but women rarely give men money to do the same.

Earmarking: Women use men’s money to pay for “important” expenses, like rent, utilities, or car payments. They spend their own money on less visible things like education, food, medicine, train-tickets home to visit family, and other services. Over time, men’s money transforms into durable, tangible items like TVs, phones, cars, furniture, apartments, while women’s money seemingly disappears.

Timing of use: Couples sometimes spend men’s money first every month until it runs out. One third of my sample use this “his-then-hers” system. The couple spends the man’s money throughout the month until his cash disappears or his bank account gets too low, then the woman’s money “kicks in”. Women’s extra earnings are earmarked as shared savings. This helps both partners “feel” like the husband is the breadwinner, even if his wife earns more.

These findings suggest that couples use money to construct a gender boundary in the home: one that casts men as breadwinners and women as domestic managers. However, the gender boundary has some positive effects, like saving men from feeling emasculated in the labor market. Furthermore, when men give money to women, women interpret it as a gesture of deference and a token of gratitude. Men’s money provides a means of signaling respect for women’s unpaid labor. 

When I conducted my fieldwork in 2015, Russia invaded Eastern Ukraine. I talked to many families who were struggling to keep their jobs, pay their rent, and stretch the budget from month to month. They often earned cash, lived with extended family, and managed to survive by working two or four jobs. This changed the priorities of my sample. Couples were not overly concerned with fairness or equality in the home—they were more worried about how to pay rent next month. Because of these constraints, my respondents’ stories are most representative of other poor or financially struggling couples, not wealthy couples. However, my research did lead to some larger take-aways about money, power, and couples.

Generalizing Beyond Ukraine

Anderson_2https://www.flickr.com/photos/68751915@N05/6848823919

1) Money becomes symbolic through exchange. When money changes hands, it can become symbolic. Money can symbolize care, affection, disdain, condescension, guilt, trust, and much else besides. Whether through communication or through unspoken understanding, couples usually come to agreement about what money means in the relationship. For example, if one partner thinks exchanging money means “care and affection” while the other assumes it means “disdain and disrespect,” conflict can emerge. Money can produce power when it invokes a sense of debt or gratitude in the other. Without feelings of debt, the link between money and power is severed.

2) Money can build trust. Because sharing money can be risky, successfully sharing money helps partners trust each other. Sharing can take on many different forms of exchange—unilateral giving, pooling, tit-for-tat, even dividing up costs in a systematic way. By behaving responsibly, partners prove to one other that they are trustworthy and competent. I found that men gave money to women as a gesture that husbands “trust” their wives, even if wives earned more money than their husbands.

3) Money isn’t everything. To understand power, one also needs to examine other resources, like labor. While money can cause friction between partners, monetary arrangements generally reflect deeper dynamics of the couple’s relationship. Fighting about money often reflects deeper disagreements about whose labor and well-being is more valuable. I discover that for many families, exchanging money is a method of symbolically giving value to labor. Couples in my study positioned the husbands as “givers” in part to symbolically give value to women’s unpaid reproductive and domestic labor.

Nadina L. Anderson is a PhD candidate in Sociology at the University of Arizona. She is currently completing her dissertation entitled “Money Talks: Trust, Power, and Exchange in Ukrainian Households” in which she explores processes of conflict and cooperation in marriage. her other research examines housing, migration, and internally displaced people in Ukraine, Russia, Azerbaijan, and Kyrgyzstan.

Perfectly Normal Mothers?

By Angela Frederick

* We are so proud that Dr. Frederick won the 2017 Outstanding Publication in the Sociology of Disability Award. Congratulations Dr. Frederick!

Gender scholars have been critical of the expectations placed upon women to accomplish a perfect version of motherhood. Yet, as I argue in my recent Gender & Society article, what we have often understood to be a “perfection project” is in fact a “normalcy project.” Exemplified by our celebration of infants born with all ten fingers and all ten toes, we desire, not perfect babies, but normal babies. Under the guidance of medical and scientific experts, mothers are expected to devote ample amounts of their energy and resources to the project of preventing disability and other unwelcome differences in their children.

Women themselves are also expected to possess “normal” bodies as they carry out the demands of modern motherhood. Yet, how do mothers who do not have typical bodies – those with disabilities – experience these ideals? I explore this question through interviews and focus groups with mothers who have physical and sensory disabilities. I find these Deaf women and disabled women experience a profound paradox of visibility as they mother.

frederick_photo-2_1-29-17

Hypervisibility

The mothers I interviewed shared numerous stories of feeling hypervisible as they were held to higher scrutiny by medical professionals and others who assumed their atypical bodies and ways of mothering rendered them inadequate mothers. Denise, who is blind, recalled being asked by staff at her Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN) clinic, “Are you thinking about getting fixed?” Heather, who has a physical disability, recalled her OBGYN physician remarking, “You sure have a grasp of what’s going on for someone in your condition.” And Grace, who is Deaf, once looked over at a nurse’s notes during a prenatal visit and saw that the nurse had written “deaf and dumb” on her chart.

These pathologizing assumptions can lead to serious consequences for Deaf mothers and disabled mothers. One in four of the mothers I interviewed faced a serious threat to her parenting rights, when doctors initiated state intervention or when former partners or family members threatened to use the mother’s disability against her in custody disputes.

Invisibility

Though many of the mothers I interviewed experienced heightened levels of scrutiny as they sought medical care, at the same time their individual needs and ways of mothering were rendered invisible within the medical system and in the consumer market of advice and products targeting mothers. Accessibility issues manifested in different ways for these women. Mothers with physical disabilities had more issues with inaccessible hospital rooms and medical offices, as well as with restricted choice in doctors. Deaf mothers expressed frustration at medical institutions’ reluctance to provide ASL interpreters for doctor visits. And, though patient forms can be made accessible through online access, blind mothers discussed common experiences of being asked to complete their paperwork verbally in the waiting room where other patients could hear their private medical information being exchanged. Many of the mothers also engaged in additional mothering labor to access hard to find baby equipment compatible with their disabilities, and even built equipment on their own.

Baby Signs

The use of baby sign presents one of the most peculiar contradictions embedded in modern mothering. New brain research suggests teaching infants and toddlers sign language will improve their verbal and cognitive development. As a result, signing has become a common practice among U.S. middle and upper class hearing families.

family-signing_frederick_1-29-17

I find, however, that the appropriation of sign language by hearing families has not come with an increased appreciation of the identities of Deaf mothers and other mothers with disabilities. Consider the experience of Sarah, who is Deaf, when she sought interventions for her son, who has developmental delays. Two therapists who visited her home on separate occasions claimed Sarah’s use of American Sign Language was inhibiting her son’s language development. Thus, Sarah continued to be regarded as an inadequate mother for using sign language, even as hearing middle and upper class families are consuming sign for the benefits it purports to offer their hearing children.

Too often feminist scholarship has reinforced the binary of care, the notion that we can be neatly divided between women who provide care and those who receive it. This artificial divide renders the care work of women with disabilities invisible in our analyses. Not only are these women’s stories important in their own right, but Deaf and disabled mothers are well-positioned to expose the underlying beliefs about normalcy with which all of us contend.

Angela Frederick is assistant professor of sociology at The University of Texas at El Paso. Her research interests include gender, disability, and intersecting identities. Her article, Risky Mothers and the Normalcy Project Women with Disabilities Negotiate Scientific Motherhood, can be found in the 2017 February 31 (1) issue of Gender & Society