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.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

We Don’t Leave, They Kick Us Out: Women’s Exit from Male-Dominated Occupations

By Marga Torre

We all know that women and men tend to perform different jobs, and also that jobs typically performed by males come with more power and status. Indeed, sex segregation at work is the most relevant factor explaining the sex gap in wages, promotion, and authority. Therefore, accessing male-dominated fields is crucial for women’s economic and social advancement.

According to data provided by the National Bureau of Statistics, in 1970 about 70 percent of women in the US would have had to change jobs in order to be occupationally distributed in the same manner as men. By 1990, this percentage had decreased to 52, but it has remained rather stable since then. How is this possible when more and more women seem to be entering occupations traditionally dominated by men?  The figure below explains why.  As observed, for every 100 women moving from female- to male-dominated settings, 95 women do the opposite, thereby essentially maintaining existing levels of segregation. In other words, women’s increasing ability to “unlock the door” to male occupations has been accompanied by a substantial movement of women out of male-dominated occupations, reproducing the levels of segregation. In 1989 Jerry A. Jacobs labelled this phenomenon the revolving door, and it continues to be significant today.

Women’s occupational movement

Mtorre_1

Source: Calculated by the author using NLSY79 (1979-2010).

Why, then, do women leave male-dominated occupations—with their higher salaries and status levels—after clearing the barriers to entry? Understanding the flows between male- and female-dominated occupations requires us to examine women’s careers trajectories. Let us imagine two almost identical women starting to work in the same male-dominated occupation. They went to college together and have the same number of years of work experience. The only difference between the two women is that one started her career in the male sector right after college, while the other did so only after a period of employment in female-dominated jobs. Are they both equally likely to succeed in the male-dominated occupation? Despite their similarities, there are reasons to think that there is a higher risk of attrition with the second woman. This, I argue here, is because the notion of women’s work is imbued with assumptions and beliefs about the worth of the worker, which hinders their integration in the male sector. I use the term scar effect to describe the penalties associated with time spent in female-dominated occupations for women’s opportunities in male-dominated occupations.

The figure below uses data compiled between 1979 and 2010 to show the exit probability for women switching from a male- to a female-dominated occupation one year after being hired. We distinguish three type of women with three different career trajectories: women already working in the male field (insiders), women recently arriving from a female-dominated occupation (newcomers), and women who have experienced previous episodes of attrition from male-dominated occupations (repeaters). Blue indicates lower exit rates, while the spectrum closer to red indicates higher exit rates—all after controlling for relevant demographic characteristics (age, level of education, parental and marital status), and work-related features (tenure, hours worked, year of experience).

Mtorre_2

          Source: Calculated by the author using NLSY79 (1979-2010)

As observed, the probability of moving to a female-dominated occupation one year after entry is significantly lower for women who have been working in the male field than for women who have recently arrived from female settings. More specifically, the probability of attrition to female occupations is 22 percent for insiders but over 40 percent for newcomers in the case of “high-status” professionals. The probability of exit for repeaters is higher still at about 50 percent, almost twice the probability of attrition for insiders. It could be that co-workers perceive previous episodes of attrition from male-dominated occupations as an indication of failure, or of women’s inability to fulfill their responsibilities; such sentiments and lack of confidence in their abilities could raise the probability of such repeaters exiting and returning to a more supportive environment. The differences among women in low-status occupations are less pronounced. Attrition rates range from 30 percent for insiders to about 42 percent for repeaters, with newcomers at around 40 percent. In short, attrition is substantially higher for newcomers than for insiders among both categories of workers, while professionals suffer extra penalties for earlier episodes of attrition.

This evidence points to the scar effect of female work; in other words, women’s attrition can be partly explained by newcomers’ disadvantages with respect to both men and women employed in male-dominated occupations. This effect is more pronounced in the most prestigious occupations. Incumbents in male-dominated occupations tend to penalize women arriving from outside the world of men’s work, whose presence is seen as inappropriate or peculiar, more than women whose career paths have followed men’s all along.

———————————————————————————————

Marga Torre is Assistant Professor in Sociology at University Carlos III of Madrid (Spain). Her research interests include gender, occupational segregation, labor markets, and social media. Her work has recently appeared in Social Forces, Sociological  Perspectives, and International Migration.

 

 

Queering Romance

By Ellen Lamont

For the last couple of decades, debates over same-sex marriage dominated the national political conversation on gay rights. Slogans such as “love is love” and other mainstream narratives proclaimed the right to wedded bliss for same-sex couples, and movement leaders worked to normalize certain LGBTQ relationships by emphasizing their similarity to straight couples. Yet not all LGBTQ individuals were on board, and many asserted that liberation was not about gaining access to a government sanctioned institution or mimicking the practices of heterosexual couples. Instead, they argued, the appeal of queer life was in making life choices, and defining relationships, on one’s own terms. Only in doing so could one radically transform the sexist, heteronormative practices that structure romantic relationships.

33880564722_a75d603747
https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_justified_sinner/33880564722/in/datetaken-public/

            Normative dating and courtship practices are widely accepted in the U.S. because they reliably communicate interest and facilitate relationship progression. Men are expected to ask for, plan, and pay for dates, progress the relationship, and propose marriage, while women are expected to simply react. Given that these norms are predicated on assumptions of heterosexuality and are deeply gendered, I wondered how queer individuals navigated the early stages of romantic relationships, a time when people are more likely to fall back on well-established practices as a way to deal with uncertainty. In order to explore this question, I interviewed 40 LGBTQ-identified young adults in the San Francisco Bay Area about their dating practices. Given their young ages, geographic location, and extensive contact with queer community organizations and friend networks, my respondents were well-situated to remake romance outside of the standard Hollywood script.

            Contrary to the voices of liberation through assimilation, my findings show that some LGBTQ-identified individuals – particularly those in more radical, politicized queer spaces – reject the presumption that they should mimic heterosexual relationship practices, which they saw as constraining, unimaginative, and heavily gendered. Instead, respondents argued for dating practices built on reciprocity.

8339442093_1d73b58c8d

They emphasized how both partners (or more, if in polyamorous relationships) should ask and pay for dates, communicate interest, and facilitate relationship progression. In addition, they aimed to construct relationships free from societal constraints and instead based on the individual needs of each partner. They viewed this approach as more honest than those that draw on cookie cutter assumptions about what people want and need in their relationships.

            This approach spilled over into their committed relationships, as respondents emphasized egalitarian, flexible, and non-gendered care work. They sought to engage in high levels of communication and negotiation so that each person’s individual, and often changing, needs would be consistently honored. Thus, my findings show how a deliberate rethinking of dating and courtship practices may set the stage for people to do the same in their long-term relationships, indicating that changing how people date may be important to building more equal, and less gendered, relationships.

            But while my respondents emphasized their desire to “write the scripts themselves” based on individual needs and wants, they faced emergent community-level norms that restricted the range of “acceptable” relationship practices. Given the queer community’s focus on resisting gendered and heteronormative practices, the people I spoke with discussed anywhere from mild to heavy pressure to avoid these practices in their own relationships. As a result, people worked hard to be appropriately radical and resist falling back on normative conventions. Those who fell back on heteronormative practices were either shamed or compelled to create narratives in which their adherence to such practices was explained away in order to undermine potential critiques. While my findings show the potential embedded in building relationships based on the expressed needs and desires of each partner rather than on default expectations, they also demonstrate that queer people struggle with the paradox that liberation can itself become a constraining norm, as the pressure to contest societal level norms translates into a pressure to always be radical.

19071626020_a99951719a_k

Ellen Lamont is an assistant professor  of sociology at the Appalachian State University. Her research examines how gender and sexuality shape young adults’ hookup, dating, and courtship practices.

 

 

 

Calibrating Extremes: The Balancing Act of Maternal Foodwork

By Kate Cairns, Josée Johnston and Merin Oleschuk

 

When it comes to feeding children, mothers today must avoid the appearance of caring too little, or too much. Either extreme garners social stigma, although the penalties are far from equal.

Theresa describes how becoming a mother brought heightened significance to her food decisions. “I really tried to avoid the junk,” she says, hosting a focus group of friends in her Toronto apartment. A mixed-race single mother raising three kids on social assistance, Theresa says the scarcity of time and money makes putting regular healthy meals on the table difficult. But occasionally her efforts pay off. She recalls with pride the time her five-year-old son “went to a birthday party at McDonald’s, came home and threw up because he just wasn’t used to that food.” For Theresa, her son’s intolerance for fast food was evidence of her devoted feeding work.

The specter of the “McDonalds Mom”

When we conducted interviews and focus groups with Toronto women, many mothers described ongoing efforts to feed their kids nutritious meals, while avoiding processed “junk.” In doing so, these women distanced their own feeding practices from an imagined “bad” mother who makes “bad” food choices. Carol (white, producer) admits that she sometimes scrutinizes other grocery carts with a “judgmental eye” when she sees “really awful stuff going down the conveyer belt with kids there.” Tara (a white single-mother who was unable to work due to chronic pain) expressed frustration that her son’s healthy lunches would inevitably be traded for junk because his friends were sent to school with “all this crap.”

As mothers in our study distanced themselves from an unhealthy “Other” who made poor food choices, we were surprised how frequently McDonald’s entered the conversation. McDonald’s seemed to function as a trope symbolizing “easy” meals, “unhealthy” choices, and “bad” mothering more generally. Gail (white, acupuncturist) contrasted her vision of healthy home cooking with a “stereotypical image of someone stopping at McDonald’s to get food for their kids.” Marissa (Black, project manager) confessed that as “busy people we do need to do fast food,” but clarified that “my kids will tell you that does not mean McDonald’s.” Lucia (Latina, social worker) said she and her son “talk about what’s junk and you know, McDonald’s and all that kind of food” in an effort to teach him “what’s healthy, what’s not healthy.”

Again and again, mothers distanced themselves from the figure of the “McDonald’s Mom,” a stigmatized “Other” they used to defend their own feeding practices. While this defense may seem judgmental, we suggest mothers’ efforts to establish this distance reflect the intense pressures they experience feeding their children. These pressures are especially penalizing for poor women who struggle to feed kids on a limited budget and racialized women who face enduring racist stereotypes about parenting and food choices. Indeed, the assumption that poor mothers make inferior food choices is evident in recent calls to restrict what can be purchased on SNAP benefits, undermining the essential role of government assistance in mitigating the effects of poverty.

Going organic… but not too organic

When distancing their own feeding practices from “bad” ones, some mothers described feeding their children an organic diet – a resource-intensive practice that has become a gold standard of middle-class motherhood. Mothers today face considerable pressure to purchase ‘pure’ foods that are free of harmful chemical additives; this “intensive feeding ideology” involves the added work of researching products, reading labels, and making baby food from scratch.

Bananas

Some more privileged mothers in our study expressed preference for these standards, but insisted they weren’t dogmatic in their commitment. Tammy (white, daycare worker) explained that while she and her husband provide their son healthy foods, they “try very hard also not to get into that urban, crunchy granola mafia kind of mindset.” Elaine (Asian, research analyst) described how she “goes with the flow” when feeding her infant daughter, and contrasted this approach with friends who are “very militant about it… almost as if it’s a religion.”

Thus, when feeding children an organic diet, mothers risk resembling another stigmatized figure: the overbearing “Organic Mom” whose feeding practices venture into excess. Implicitly coded white and affluent, this pathologized figure obsesses over what her kids are eating, denying them the tasty treats associated with childhood. Like the McDonald’s Mom, the Organic Mom is not a real person, embodied in a singular mother; she is an imagined figure used to police the boundaries of maternal foodwork.

Feeding children: A struggle shaped by social inequality

Importantly, the McDonald’s Mom and the Organic Mom do not entail equal social sanction. The stigma of being perceived as a “bad” feeder is much more socially discrediting, and engenders significantly greater penalty – including surveillance from state institutions like schools, doctors, and child welfare agencies. What’s more, an individual woman’s relationship to these figures is shaped by her social location. Given the challenge of feeding children on a limited income, along with racist ideologies linking “healthy eating” to whiteness, the threat of being categorized as a McDonald’s Mom is clearly greater for poor women and women of color than for affluent white women. And the risk of being perceived as controlling or uptight is incomparable with the stress of food insecurity. Shannon, a white single-mother living on social assistance, said she wished she could buy organic food, but has to ration her own fruit and vegetable intake so her daughter can eat them. She explained that when there’s not enough for both of them, “I will say I don’t feel like eating.”

Our point is not to equate these uneven penalties, but to draw attention to the multiple ways mothers are harshly judged for their foodwork. Notably, comparable figures of the “McDonald’s” or “Organic Dad” did not emerge in our broader study (which included men), revealing the continued gendered burden of feeding children and the more flexible standards fathers face when doing this work.

What became clear throughout our research is that mothers from diverse backgrounds face pressure to continually monitor their children’s eating in ways that are careful and responsible, yet don’t appear obsessive or controlling. We call this process calibration – the constant balancing act of striving for an elusive maternal ideal. Calibration is labor-intensive and emotionally taxing, part of the seemingly impossible task of performing the “good” mother. If you opt for affordability or convenience, you risk being seen as a McDonald’s Mom. If you take your job as health-protector too seriously, you may be deemed an obsessive Organic Mom who deprives her kids of childhood joys like hotdogs. These gendered pressures not only contribute to mother-blame, but distract us from the larger harms perpetuated by an unhealthy, unsustainable, and unjust food system. Instead of trading in individualized blame, let’s work to build an equitable food system that promotes the health of all children, not simply those whose mothers appear to care (and spend) just the right amount.

Kate Cairns is an Assistant Professor of Childhood Studies at Rutgers University-Camden. She is coauthor of Food and Femininity (Bloomsbury 2015) with Josée Johnston, Professor of Sociology at the University of Toronto. Merin Oleschuk is a PhD Candidate in Sociology at the University of Toronto studying home cooking and family health.

Gender Bland Sexism in Sport

By Michela Musto, Cheryl Cooky, and Michael A. Messner

“If [Serena Williams] played in the men’s circuit, she’d be like 700 in the world.” – John McEnroe

During a recent interview on National Public Radio, former American tennis champion and current sports commentator John McEnroe was asked whether Serena Williams was the best tennis player in the world (see here). Williams has been ranked number one at least eight times during her career and holds the most Grand Slam titles in singles, doubles, and mixed doubles among active players. She is also the only player—male or female—who has won three of four Grand Slam tournaments six times. Many sports commentators and former tennis champions, including Chris Evert, Billie Jean King, and Andre Agassi, agree she is one of the greatest players of all time[i]. Despite calling her the best female player in the world, McEnroe said that “like 700” male players could outperform her.

Muscio

McEnroe is part of a long history of male sports commentators and journalists making trivializing and objectifying remarks about sportswomen. Consider Don Imus’s racist, sexist, and classist comments in 2007, when he described the Rutgers University women’s basketball team as a “bunch of nappy headed ho’s.[ii]” Or when sports news commentator Bill Weir trivialized the 1999 World Cup champion U.S. national women’s soccer team by referring to them as the “ponytail express[iii].”

Despite these egregious examples of sexist commentary, our recent research in Gender & Society suggests a shift in how televised news and highlight shows cover women’s sports. Once every five years, we have examined six weeks of sports news on three Los Angeles-based network affiliate stations (KCBS, KNBC, and KABC) and three weeks of ESPN’s SportsCenter. When we first began the study in 1989, we found that sports commentators regularly made overtly sexist comments similar to the ones made by McEnroe, Imus, or Weir.

But in our most recent study we found that sports news commentators now cover women athletes differently. Rather than sexualizing or trivializing women athletes, sports shows depict women athletes in a lackluster, matter-of-fact manner, which we call “gender bland sexism.” Gender bland sexism is a contemporary gender framework that disguises sexism against women athletes as reactions to individual athletes’ merit and performance, which makes women’s athletic accomplishments appear lackluster, compared to men’s.

Gender bland sexism is evident in this excerpt from a SportsCenter “Top Ten Plays” segment.

The ninth best play goes to Missy Franklin. The commentator says, “Missy Franklin. In the NCAA women’s swimming and diving championship. Way ahead of the pack in the 200-yard freestyle. Wins easily.” The commentators also note that she “sets the American, NCAA and U.S. Open record in the event.” Number six is from a spring training MLB game between the Cubs and the White Sox. The second baseman catches the ball and tags a player out, and a commentator gushes, “I think he’s ready for the regular season! Let’s get it going!” Number four is from the Heat vs. Grizzlies basketball game, showing Ray Allen scoring. The voice-over from the in-studio commentator exclaims, “From fizzle to sizzle!”

If one were to rank the sports achievements included in this segment, winning an NCAA championship in multiple record-breaking time is certainly a more noteworthy athletic accomplishment than the routine men’s events presented (i.e., tagging a player out at second base during a pre-season game or scoring a basket during a regular season game). Yet the commentators’ delivery of the men’s stories sizzled, while coverage of Franklin’s record-shattering swim fizzled. Instead of exclaiming that Franklin “got it going!” the commentator flatly observed Franklin was “way ahead” and “wins easily.” His bland commentary makes it seem as if Franklin’s achievement was unimpressive, thus sending the audience a subtle message that women’s sports lack excitement. We found that sports news shows consistently covered women’s sports in this gender bland manner.

Commentators also regularly used dominant language when describing events that transpired during men’s games. For example, a SportsCenter segment described NBA basketball player Andrew Wiggins as putting two players “in the spin cycle” as he completed a “monstrous two-handed jam.” But when women’s sports were covered, dominant language was almost always missing from commentators’ analysis. For example, SportsCenter awarded an ESPN “Star of the Night” to Shannon Szabados, an Olympic gold medalist and the first woman to play in a Canadian men’s professional hockey league. The commentator explained, “She had 27 saves, it was a 4-3 loss for her Columbus Cottonmouths to the visiting Knoxville Ice Bears in the Southern Professional Hockey League, but Shannon Szabados did work.” Despite Szabados’ historic accomplishments, the discussion of her performance could not have been more literal. The commentator blandly concluded that she “did work.”

In the classic text Racism Without Racists, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva draws attention to the ways that white people express racist views in “color-blind” ways (such as when whites criticize the Black Lives Matter movement by saying that “all lives matter”). By couching contemporary forms of racism in ostensibly nonracial ways, color-blind racial discourses make the underlying dynamics difficult to detect. Like color-blind racism, gender bland sexism enables commentators to subtly convey beliefs about men’s athletic superiority. Coverage of women’s sports fizzles in comparison to men’s coverage, which continues the aggressive and celebratory audience-building for men’s sports while simultaneously shielding televised sports news and highlights shows from charges of sexism. After all, now commentators are speaking “respectfully” about women, even if this means delivering the facts in a monotone voice, with an uninspired delivery.

Gender bland sexism makes the overall lack of coverage of women’s sports (less than 2-3% of total coverage) appear to be a rational response to women’s presumably “naturally” lackluster performances. Gender bland sexism also lets sports media off the hook from investing more time, resources, and energy into covering women’s sports with the same degree of interest, quality and production values as they do when covering men’s sports. Consequently, gender-bland sexism is a form of stealth sexism, operating under the radar to reify gender boundaries and render invisible the very real and continued need to address persisting inequalities women face in sport.

For more on this study please also read: A Subtler Sexism Now Frames TV Coverage of Women in Sports

Michela Musto is a PhD Candidate in sociology at the University of Southern California. Her research focuses on gender, children & youth, education, and sport. She is the co-editor of Child’s Play: Sport in Kids’ Worldswith Michael Messner, and her work has been published in Gender & Society, Communication & Sport, and the Sociology of Sport Journal.

Cheryl Cooky is an associate professor in American studies at Purdue University. Her teaching and research focuses on gender and sports, and feminism in media and popular culture. She is the co-author of No Slam Dunk: Gender, Sports, and the Unevenness of Social Change, with Michael Messner, the Past-President of the North American Society for the Sociology of Sport, and serves on the editorial boards of the Sociology of Sport Journal, Communication & Sport, Qualitative Research on Sport, Exercise & Health and the International Review of the Sociology of Sport.

Michael Messner is professor of sociology and gender studies at the University of Southern California.  His teaching and research focuses on gender and sports, men and masculinities, gender-based violence, and war and peace.  He is author or editor of several books, including Child’s Play: Sport in Kids’ Worldsedited with Michela Musto, and No Slam Dunk: Gender, Sports, and the Unevenness of Social Changewith Cheryl Cooky.   


[ii]
http://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/abs/10.1123/ssj.27.2.139[i] http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/serena-williams-americas-greatest-athlete

[iii] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0193732502239583

Rural Migrant Men in Urban China: Masculinity and Compromise

By Yinni Peng

Mass rural-urban migration has been sustained in China for over three decades. According to data provided by the National Bureau of Statistics of the People’s Republic of China, the number of rural-urban migrants reached 281.71 million in 2016. Rural-urban migration has not only contributed a vast amount of cheap labor to China’s rapid economic development and urbanization in past decades but has also dramatically shaped the lives of migrants and their left-behind family members in rural China.

In the current discussion of rural-urban migration and families in post-reform China, most of the attention has been paid to left-behind children and migrant women. How migration impacts rural migrant men’s family life and gender identity remains an understudied issue. To enrich the discussion of migration and masculinity, Susanne Choi and I coauthored a book entitled Masculine Compromise: Migration, Family, and Gender in China that explores the reconstruction of masculinity of rural-urban migrant men in South China. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 192 rural migrant men in Shenzhen, Dongguan, and Guangzhou in Guangdong Province, we delineated how these men interpreted and negotiated their gender and family roles as lovers, husbands, fathers, and sons in an intersectional structure of gender, class, and the rural-urban divide in China.

Peng_1 (2)

Despite being internal migrants, these rural-urban migrant men face structural barriers to employment and social welfare in their urban destinations under China’s household registration (hukou) system. Since the 1950s, China has used the household registration system to differentiate, and sometimes even segregate, its rural and urban populations. Inherited from one’s parents, one’s hukou status determines his/her access and entitlement to public resources and social welfare. When millions of rural people migrate to urban China, the majority find it hard to obtain urban hukou in their destination cities, and their rural hukou constrains them from accessing urban public resources and social welfare. As a result, most rural-urban migrants are stuck in the secondary labor market in urban China and must take on dirty, difficult, or dangerous jobs undesirable to urban residents. Long working hours, meager salaries, and limited access to social welfare not only make rural-urban migrants an economically marginalized group in urban China but also force them to leave their dependent family members behind in their rural hometowns. Their rural origin also makes them second-class citizens who are discriminated against by urban residents in their cities.

In rural China, patriarchy grants rural men power and authority in both the public and private spheres. They dominate economic activities, control various resources, and usually hold authority as the head of the household. Although rural-urban migration enables these rural men to earn more economic resources for their families, their socioeconomic inferiority and marginalization in urban destinations puts their masculinity in crisis. Migration exposes these rural men to a hegemonic urban discourse of masculinity that emphasizes men’s economic success and professional knowledge or skills. Compared with their urban counterparts, rural-urban migrant men have limited socioeconomic resources to play the role of a romantic lover via generous consumption or the role of a good husband/father who is able to provide his family with good economic support.

 Meanwhile, the discrepancy between rural patriarchal tradition and modernized urban ideologies of gender and family causes struggles, dilemmas, and tensions in their multiple family relations. In their romantic relationships, young migrant men have to strike a balance between their romantic desire for an urbanized lover with whom they share an emotional intimacy and spiritual communication and their parents’ preference for a filial local wife. In their conjugal relationships, rural migrant men have to negotiate with their wives about post-marital residence, the labor division of housework and childcare, and the allocation of family resources. In their parent-child relationships, they struggle between their paternal breadwinning duty and the emotional turmoil caused by their long-term separation from their left-behind children. They are also caught in the dilemma of being a responsible father/husband who provides for his nuclear family via migration and being a filial son who takes care of his elderly parents in rural China.

Peng_3

Rural-urban migrant men use their masculine promise as a strategy to reconstruct their gender identity and deal with the discrepancy between the cultural ideal of men and their socioeconomic reality in a migratory context. They yield to their parents’ wish for a filial, local daughter-in-law; they participate in housework and childcare, either actively or selectively, and emphasize that they are helping their wives and making the major decisions in their families; they use material compensation and telecommunication to win their left-behind children’s hearts from afar; and they collaborate with their left-behind siblings on elderly care and redefine the meaning of filial piety by emphasizing their obedience to their parents. By making compromises, rural migrant men argue that they are sacrificing for the collective interest of the whole family or to maintain its happiness or harmony. Although they are not as economically successful as urban men, they reconstruct their masculine identity as good, honorable men by emphasizing their efforts to work hard and sacrifice for their families. Their tactical compromises in different family relations make some substantive contributions to the maintenance of their migrant families yet result in no ideological awakening on gender equality. Their masculine compromise is a pragmatic solution to structural constraints or oppression rather than an ideological challenge to or transformation of patriarchy.

Yinni Peng is Assistant Professor in Sociology at Hong Kong Baptist University. Her research interests include gender, family, migration, labor politics, and social media. She is the coauthor of Masculine Compromise: Migration, Family, and Gender in China (2016; University of California Press).

The Potency of Discursive Aggression in Trans Peoples’ Lives.

By stef shuster

Walking into a restaurant in downtown Metromidwest, Charlie orders a half sandwich/half soup to go. Upon placing their order, the person working the cash register looks up, smiles, and says, “Thank you Ma’am. Have a good day. Your order will be ready shortly.” Charlie levels their gaze, mumbles that they are not a lady, and continues to the waiting area for their lunch order to be called. Returning to work, Charlie sees several co-workers congregated around the conference room. One calls out, “Hey man. We were just talking about going out after work. Do you want to join in?” Charlie quietly sighs, and agrees to go out with their co-workers after work. They continue reflecting on the everyday challenges experienced in social life as a 25-year-old White genderqueer person, “I just don’t know what to say. They are my co-workers. Good people. And this is the first job that I have really liked, I don’t want to offend anyone or risk getting fired. I’ve tried before to correct them when they mis-gender me, but they just don’t get it.” Charlie shares that while these moments in interaction are common, they are difficult to negotiate, “I just expect it at this point. You know? Like – strangers don’t know that there people like me who do not identify as women or men. And my co-workers are trying to do the best they can.”

             These moments described by Charlie show us how many trans-identified people confront the limitations of language in everyday life. In my recently published piece in the August issue of Gender & Society, I examine the narratives of 40 trans people and focus on how language and talk uphold social order and regulate gender in interaction. I introduce “discursive aggression” as a term to describe how communicative acts are used in interaction to hold people accountable to social and cultural-based expectations (i.e., other-enforcement), and how individuals hold themselves accountable in anticipating the unfolding of interactions (i.e., self-enforcement). Through talk, discursive aggression regulates trans people in everyday social settings (like when Charlie is referred to as “ma’am”) and produces for them the feeling that they are not received in the ways they wish to be known, that they are made invisible, and that their self-authorship in naming and claiming a gender identity is questioned (such as when Charlie’s co-workers refer to them as “man”). Because language and talk are pervasive features of everyday life, indeed the building blocks for how individuals make sense of our selves and each other, there are limited options to respond to discursive aggression in the day-to-day interactions we have with strangers, co-workers, friends, and family.

Casual team meeting in open office discussing business
Person stands discussing business with team sitting holding documents & mugs in casual meeting in open office

  My work shows how trans people anticipate negative consequences for responding to discursive aggression. In being aware of others’ expectations for how interactions should unfold, trans people may engage in self-silencing to uphold the social order. That moment described by Charlie in seeing their co-workers and not wanting to risk correcting them out of fears of being fired, demonstrates how potent discursive aggression can be and translates to Charlie engaging in self-silencing out of fears of negative consequences they may experience by even the most well-meaning people. This particular dimension of accountability processes further shows us how power inequities play out in interaction, and how subordinated groups put in significant work to help others “save face” by not correcting mistakes, prioritize the needs of family members and friends over their own needs, and are boxed in by restrictive cultural expectations. Moving forward, scholars might consider other intersecting identities, and interactional dynamics to sort through the contexts that set the stage for people using discursive aggression–intentionally or unintentionally–to maintain their privilege in ways previously overlooked in existing scholarship and to document how power is inflected through talk and used to uphold cultural expectations and norms in interaction.

stef shuster is an assistant professor of sociology at Appalachian State University. Their research examines the social construction of “evidence” in three domains including medicine, social movements, and in the construction of knowledge. Their work has recently appeared in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior and Social Psychology Quarterly.

Gender & Society: Table of Contents, Volume 31, No. 5

GENDER & SOCIETY, Vol. 31 No. 5
Read this issue on SAGE: http://gas.sagepub.com/content/current

Articles
“From fizzle to sizzle!”: Televised Sports News and the Production of Gender-Bland Sexism
MICHELA MUSTO, CHERYL COOKY AND MICHAEL MESSNER

How Individuals Perceive Reconciliation Problems: Childcare Policies and
Gender-specific Patterns of Time Conflicts
ISABELLE STADELMANN-STEFFEN AND DOMINIQUE OEHRLI

We Can Write the Scripts Ourselves: Queer Challenges to Heteronomative Courtship Practices
ELLEN LAMONT

Bifurcated Conversations in Sociological Studies of Religion and Gender
ORIT AVISHAI AND COURTNEY A. IRBY

Confined to care: An exploration of girls´ gendered vulnerabilities in secure care
ANN-KARINA ESKE HENRIKSEN

Book Reviews
Labor of Love: Gestational Surrogacy and the Work of Making Babies 
by Heather Jacobson
CAITLYN COLLINS

Irons Dads: Managing Family, Work, and Endurance Sport Identities 
by Diane Tracy Cohen
DEBALEENA GHOSH

Contesting Intersex: The Dubious Diagnosis
by Georgiann Davis
JUDITH LORBER

Legalizing LGBT Families: How the Law Shapes Parenthood
by Amanda K. Baumle and D’Lane R. Compton
CHERYL LLEWELLYN

Modernizing Sexuality: US HIV Prevention in Sub-Saharan Africa
by Anne Esacove
KAREN BOOTH

Brown Bodies, White Babies: The Politics of Cross-Racial Surrogacy
by Laura Harrison
ELIZABETH ZIFF

Women without Men: Single Mothers and Family Change in the New Russia 
by Jennifer Utrata
EVA FODOR

Raising the Race: Black Career Women Redefine Marriage, Motherhood, and Community
by Riche J. Daniel Barnes
ELIZABETH HIGGINBOTHAM

Made in Egypt: Gendered Identity and Aspiration on the Globalised Shop Floor
by Leila Zaki Chakravarti
RACHEL BRICKNER