New methods and consequences of Right-Wing Attacks on Professors

 

By Abby Ferber

*This article will be open access on the website for the rest of 2018

“I never thought such brutality could come out of the classroom.” These are the words of a University faculty member who was secretly recorded by a student intern for the “College Fix.” One sentence was taken out of context and turned into the focus of an “article.” The reality was twisted into a story designed to be picked up by other right wing websites disguised as “news” and to trigger readers and trolls. The professor awoke to over 700 abusive and harassing emails. Mission accomplished. The student plant dropped the class.

These occurrences are becoming more common on right-wing social media sites like the College Fix, Campus Reform, Professor Watch, and others that engage in similarly unethical methods. They target higher education Faculty who teach subjects like race, privilege, climate change and other subjects deemed threatening to right wing politics. People of color and white women are especially vulnerable. More than 100 cases occurred over the past year. I was one of

My own experience over the past five years is consistent with the patterns I have found in talking to others who have been targeted. Most cases follow a pattern as they are ushered through the “outrage The new alt-right sites have been strategically set up and very well-funded by foundations with familiar names like Koch, Coors and Devos. Money is funneled through alt-right (white Nationalist) organizations like Turning Point USA and The Leadership Institute. They are frequently picked up by other more mainstream sites including Breitbart, The Blaze, National Review, aggregators like the Drudge Report and eventually Fox news, in addition to overt extremist sites like The Daily Stormer. At the same time, Armies of trolls are called to attention and begin their work, utilizing email, Facebook, Youtube, and other social media tools to harass, scare, and silence their targets and exert control over the curriculum.

alt-right_campus-3
Charlottesville confronts Unite The Right 27

Social media has been weaponized to advance an extreme political agenda on campuses across the country.  Campus administrators and public relations offices are frequently unprepared to respond. These attacks are highly organized and strategic; to develop an equally strategic response, it is essential that we understand why these attacks have so quickly proliferated and will

Various contextual factors make faculty and institutions particularly vulnerable at this moment. Shrinking state financial support for public colleges and universities has forced administrations to seek new sources of money, turning to donations from wealthy individuals, corporations, and foundations. These funds often come with strings attached. For instance, the Koch brothers have poured millions of dollars into higher education institutions across the country to create positions and programs that advance their agenda. George Mason University has received a lot of attention, but this is only one example.

Along with the monetary carrot comes the stick. In addition to attacking faculty and their curriculum, extreme white nationalist organizations, including those self-labeled “alt-right,” leaflet and blanket campuses with racist, hate filled flyers. Alt right speakers are funded by external right wing organizations and foundations to speak on campuses and promote hate. The concept of free speech has been manipulated to curtail academic freedom and open civil dialogue on campus. These multi-pronged attacks are given free reign and encouraged by the cultural climate established by the Trump administration.

The direct attacks on Faculty are not a new phenomenon, but the tools of attack and the level of sophisticated coordination have changed. In 1934, Elizabeth Dilling published The Red Network-A Who’s Who and Handbook of Radicalism for Patriots, a list of 460 individuals and organizations including faculty and higher education administrators. The Anti-communist blacklisting of the McCarthy era, and more have dotted our history. Many of these movements led to threats of violence against faculty.

A lack of trust in higher education has primed segments of today’s population to believe the alt-right’s lies. Books like D’Souza’s Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus, Shapiro’s Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth, and Horowitz’s The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America are just a few. 

Social media is a crucial tool that differentiates the wave of harassment we are experiencing today. Social media serves as a means of manufacturing crises, spreading and legitimizing these stories with each retelling in combination with the strategic use of search engine algorithms so that these stories are easily found even years later.

The attacks aimed at faculty take the form of harassment, abuse, and outright threats. Examples include “Traitor; Communist Jew pig; Fat cunt; N—–; You deserve to be raped; I have seen your children; I know where you will be and I will be there.“ Under the guise of protecting free speech, these messages are clearly meant to silence.

The interviews that I discuss in my article for Gender and Society reveal that these attacks evoke great anger and fear but these emotions are often outweighed by the conviction that we must have “really hit a chord, or people wouldn’t bother.” For myself and indeed most faculty, this has served as motivation to continue the work we are doing, with more passion and commitment than ever.

Abby L. Ferber is the co-founder and Director of The Matrix Center for the Advancement of Social Equity and Inclusion, and a Professor of Sociology, and Women’s and Ethnic Studies. She has published numerous books and teaches about race, gender, sexuality, intersectionality, privilege, oppression, and the far right. She serves on the national organizing team of the annual White Privilege Conference and co-facilitates the Knapsack Institute: Transforming Teaching and Learning. She is the editor of Understanding and Dismantling Privilege, an on-line international journal.

Advertisements

Redoing Gender, Redoing Religion

By: Helana Darwin

One night while I was watching Transparent, a particular scene caught my attention. The young female rabbi is explaining how difficult it is to be in a masculinized profession without losing her sense of femininity and sexiness. To demonstrate her point, she takes off her kippah (a small skullcap that is traditionally worn by Jewish men, otherwise known as a yarmulke) and proclaims “Sexy!” Then she places the garment back on her head and makes a face, announcing “Not sexy.” The other character smilingly assents to her point.

I couldn’t stop thinking about this scene. My thoughts drifted to all of the women pursuing rabbinic ordination at the seminary where I had just earned my Master’s degree in Jewish Studies. Most of them wore kippot (plural of kippah), like the rabbi in Transparent. Did they similarly struggle with feeling like their kippah cancelled out their femininity or sexiness? Could this possibly explain why more women do not wear kippot , despite the transnational Jewish feminist push to embrace masculinized Jewish practices? Since the 1970s, Jewish women have boldly fought for their right to full inclusion within Judaism, and yet the sight of a woman in a kippah remains rare. Why?

Darwin_2

I couldn’t find an answer within academic databases. The vast majority of feminist head-covering research focuses on whether or not the hijab is oppressive or empowering to Muslim women who wear it. The general consensus among feminist scholars today seems to be that this is a false dichotomy; in reality, the hijab has different meanings to different women, depending on a number of factors including their nationality, parentage, local culture, and age. While this academic debate has been fruitful, it has rarely extended beyond the gender-normative case study of the hijab. This trend within the literature struck me as regrettably limited.

How, I wondered, do women who wear kippot reconcile their seemingly contradictory religious and gender scripts? Given my connections within the Jewish community, I realized that I was well-positioned to conduct this research. Indeed, within 24 hours of sending out my survey link, I had already received more than 400 responses. Additionally, I was also flooded by effusive emails, from respondents who wished to thank me for giving them a chance to clarify the meanings of their practice. In total, I collected responses from 576 Jewish women across the globe who wear kippot. I have derived two articles from this data so far. The first article focuses on the religious meanings of women’s kippah practice. It is called “Jewish Women’s Kippot: Meanings and Motives” and it is published in the journal Contemporary Jewry. The second article is significantly more theoretical and focuses on the extra-religious meanings associated with the practice. It is called “Redoing Gender, Redoing Religion,” and is in the current issue of Gender & Society.

“Redoing Gender, Redoing Religion” illuminates a new angle of the gender/religion nexus through this open-ended survey data, demonstrating how these two axes of accountability are intertwined. Jewish women have historically been exempt from the majority of Jewish ritual practices due to an anachronistic assumption that they are too busy with child-rearing and other domestic tasks. As a result, practices and customs such as wearing the kippah have become masculinized. When women assume such a historically masculinized practice, they render themselves vulnerable to gender-policing and a parallel process that I call “Jewish-policing.” According to those who hold themselves (and others) accountable to the patriarchal tradition, these women are neither “doing femininity” properly, “doing Jewish properly,” nor “doing Jewish womanhood” properly. Although some Jewish cultural fields embrace a shift towards egalitarianism, the women remain accountable to their more traditional coreligionists beyond the confines of these progressive spaces.

            The women in this study utilize a range of strategies to internally reconcile the tensions between the traditional script of gendered Judaism and their egalitarian values: some feminize the kippah so as to affirm their gender-normativity while doing Judaism differently; others utilize the kippah’s masculine-encoding to do Jewish womanhood differently. However, regardless of the women’s efforts to internally legitimize their practice, they remain externally accountable to their traditional coreligionists, who perceive their practice as a politically motivated statement. In response, some women go to great lengths to discursively distance themselves from feminism, insisting that they desire inclusion within tradition rather than an end to Jewish tradition itself. Others embrace their association with feminism, using their hypervisibility to begin conversations with coreligionists about gender equality within Judaism.

            These results lend new insight into how gender and religion function as mutually constitutive categories: while men can simply “do Jewish” by wearing the kippah, women are not afforded such a gender-blind privilege. Rather, coreligionists perceive women who wear kippot as automatically doing something other than Judaism, something that is inherently gendered and political—such as “doing religious feminism.” It appears that these two systems of accountability (gender ideology and religious ideology) remain inextricably linked to one another, despite evidence of an egalitarian shift within certain Jewish fields. Future research about gender norms/ideologies should consider religious background along with the more commonly included variables, given this evidence.

Helana Darwin Sociology doctoral candidate at Stony Brook University who is on the market. Her research highlights the regulatory impact of the gender binary system through a wide range of case studies. Recent publications include “Doing Gender Beyond the Binary: a virtual ethnography,” published by Symbolic Interaction and “Omnivorous Masculinity: gender capital and cultural legitimacy in craft beer culture,” published by Social Currents. Learn more about Helana’s research at helanadarwin.com.

 

Young Men’s Involvement in Hormonal Contraception: Paradox or Possibility?

By Ann M. Fefferman and Ushma D. Upadhyay

It may seem like a no-brainer that women tend to take care of hormonal contraception.  They should have the right to choose a method, use that method, and manage side effects in a way that works best for them. Women have a wide range of methods to choose from, including the pill, patch, vaginal ring, implant, and intrauterine device. These methods allow people to ditch the condom and enjoy increased sexual pleasure and spontaneity with lower chances of having an unintended pregnancy.

But does the fact that these contraceptive methods affect women’s bodies mean that men don’t see a role for themselves in pregnancy prevention?   No. Some men do see themselves as partners in contraceptive use and management. Our research identifies how young men are involved in contraceptive management in helpful and supportive ways. Our research focuses on young low-income men and women of color and the ways they work together to manage contraception without restricting women’s choices. We show examples of men helping with contraception, such as coming to appointments with their partners, discussing risk of pregnancy with partners, helping to choose a method, and reminding partners to take pills or to remove the vaginal ring. We also note how men and women work together to prevent pregnancy despite the different circumstances constraining their choices, such as immigration laws, gang membership, neighborhood violence, and poverty. In this way, our research works against the stereotypes often applied to young low-income men of color when people talk about unintended pregnancy.

While our research shows these positive examples of how young men can work within or against difficult circumstances to support women with contraception, we also show how they aren’t as “feminist”, or “egalitarian”, as they might think. Even though the men in our study were really involved in choosing and using contraception, they still thought women were the ones responsible for contraception and its effective use. Men were just helpers, much like many men “help” in the kitchen or “help” with taking care of the kids. Men used language that seemed equitable, saying that they were not responsible for contraception because they did not want to undermine women’s ability to make choices about their own bodies. Even women we interviewed agreed with these ideas.

fefferman_2

The assumption here is that men cannot respect women’s bodies and choices while still taking responsibility for the possibility of an unintended pregnancy.  Following this logic, men then can use their secondary place in contraception as a justification for assigning blame or shame to women when contraception fails. We aim to show in our research that m en’s involvement in contraception and men’s accountability for unintended pregnancy are not mutually exclusive. Men can help with contraception and also share in contraceptive responsibly (including when contraception fails). Men and women can work together to change these norms and help sustain a positive, respectful place for men in contraceptive management.

Ann M. Fefferman, MA is a PhD candidate in Sociology at University of California, Irvine. Her research interest focus broadly on gender, masculinities, reproductive health, the family and inequalities.  Currently, she is working on her dissertation, which investigates and compares masculinities in different stages of reproduction, with a focus on contraceptive management, pregnancy intentions, and abortion decision-making. In particular she intends to further her studies in medical sociology.

Ushma D. Upadhyay, PhD, MPH is an Associate Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of California, San Francisco and Director of Research for the University of California Global Health Institute’s Center of Expertise in Women’s Health, Gender, and Empowerment. She holds a National Institutes of Health Career Development Award to study gender-based power among young men and women and its effect on contraceptive use. Her current research focuses on the development and validation of the Sexual Health and Reproductive Empowerment for Young Adults (SHREYA) Scale.

THE HIDDEN TERMS OF AFRICAN AMERICAN MEN’S GUN LICENSES

By Jennifer Carlson

In July 2016, Philando Castile, one of 16 million-and-counting Americans with a license to carry a firearm concealed, was pulled over by a police officer in a Minneapolis suburb. Earlier that day, Castile recognized that as an armed African American man, he foremost had to “comply” with police. As his mother recalled, “That’s the key thing in order to survive being stopped by the police”. His sister was apprehensive: “I really don’t even want to carry my gun because I’m afraid they’ll shoot me first and then ask questions later.” During the stop, Castile disclosed his status as a licensed gun carrier to the officer. Castile was then shot several times, dying on the scene as he gasped, “I wasn’t reaching for it.” Almost a year later, a jury found Castile’s killer not guilty of manslaughter and other charges. Commentators across the political spectrum questioned the verdict, often situating Castile’s killing alongside other highly publicized police killings of African American boys and men.

Alongside police violence, the Castile case—particularly his conversation with his sister about “compliance”—also suggests subtler ways in which the state punitively disciplines men of color looking to carry guns legally. In my article, “Legally Armed but Presumed Dangerous,” I examine this punitive discipline by using observations of now-defunct Michigan’s county-level gun boards to detail the gendered and racialized terms on which African Americans are licensed by the state to carry firearms.

The gun board meetings I observed were staffed almost entirely by law enforcement and served as public forums for claimants with denied, suspended, or revoked concealed pistol licenses to contest their cases. I learned from my observations that African American men were not just disproportionately represented among claimants with suspended, denied or revoked licenses; they were also subject to a different kind of treatment. For example, administrators disproportionately lectured them (as compared to white men) regarding their behaviors during police stops; their relationships with their girlfriends, wives and fiancés; and their financial responsibilities to their families.

Carlson_2

Rather than coercive social control, I analyze these public admonitions as examples of punitive discipline: African American men who are called to gun board are held accountable to controlling images of Black masculinity in both the public sphere (i.e., the Thug) and the private sphere (i.e., the Deadbeat Dad). Arguably, a parallel can be drawn between African American women’s experiences with the welfare state and African American men’s experiences with the gun board: as a “price” of provision (whether consumable goods or the means of protection, respectively), claimants become accountable to racial/gender stereotypes and expectations in the public forum of gun board. These dynamics resonate with other scholarship—such as Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve’s excellent Crook County—that documents how due process procedures double as racial/gender degradation ceremonies for people of color.

Existing scholarship on American gun culture, such as Angela Stroud’s Good Guys with Guns and my book Citizen-Protectors, often emphasizes the cultural links between masculinity and protectionism that drive men, particularly white men, to bear arms. The experiences of legally armed African American men revealed a different, but complementary, social reality: gun licensing can be deployed by state agents as a mechanism for placing African American men in a zone of provisional citizenship.

Jennifer Carlson is an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Arizona. Her research focuses on gun culture, policing, and conservative politics. Her book, Citizen-Protectors: The Everyday Politics of Guns in an Age of Decline, was released in 2015 with Oxford University Press. Her next book, Policing the Second Amendment, examines the intersection of public law enforcement and gun politics.

How Do Race and Gender Show Up In Youth Sexual Health Promotion?

By Chris Barcelos

Elizabeth Randolph, a white woman in her late 50s, manages a sexual and reproductive health clinic in “Millerston,” a small, former manufacturing city in the US northeast that is known for its high rates of teen pregnancy among Puerto Rican youth. “Not to sound racist at all,” she told me, “but teen pregnancy really is a Latino cultural issue. It’s just not a bad thing if a kid gets pregnant. It’s just much more socially acceptable within that community.” Although Elizabeth was clear that she didn’t want to “sound racist,” she did frame Latinx culture as a cause of Millerston’s high teen birth rates, and this no doubt informed her professional work. Like other people involved in the city’s youth sexual health promotion efforts, her understanding of the effect of culture on sexuality and health are part of what I call a “gendered racial project,” meaning the ways in which race and gender interact to create social meanings, experiences, and inequalities. In sexual health promotion, the ingrained ways in which race and gender show up are often unnoticed by the people who design policies and programs; in Millerston, these professionals are usually not members of the communities they serve. Ideas about race and gender affect the kinds of youth sexual health promotion that communities implement and can reinforce, rather than fix, gender, race, and health inequalities.

My article “Culture, Contraception, and Colorblindness: Youth Sexual Health Promotion as a Gendered Racial Project,” explores how sexual health promotion aimed at young, low-income Latinas in Millerston can be understood as a gendered racial project. I spent three years interviewing professional stakeholders like Elizabeth and participating in coalition meetings, teen pregnancy prevention events, and provider trainings. I found that youth sexual health promoters understand “Latino culture” as stable and uniform in its approach to sexuality and reproduction. They assume that Latinas are against contraception and abortion, and that Latinx families are silent about sexuality and promote teen childbearing within the family. This understanding allows health promoters to justify their efforts to regulate the sexuality and childbearing of young Latinas, including whether they should have sex, what kinds of contraception they should use, and whether they should become parents.

In places like Millerston, where there are high rates of teen pregnancy among women of color, health professionals heavily promote LARC, or long-acting reversible contraceptive (methods such as the IUD, shot, or implant), while downplaying their undesirable side effects. For example, a white social worker in her 40s shared a story about a young client who she characterized as irresponsible because she didn’t want an IUD, while minimizing the client’s real concerns: “There’s all these reasons – they don’t want something inserted into their body, they don’t want to gain weight [sarcastically], there’s all these things, but in my head those are just excuses.” It’s also important to note, as sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva explains, that many Americans believe we live in a post-racial, “colorblind” society where race no longer matters. Yet, race very much still matters, and imagining that race and racism don’t affect reproductive health allows health promoters to overlook the long history of how LARC has been used to control the childbearing of women of color, disabled people, and others whose sexuality and reproduction are seen as outside the norm.

Barcellos_1

Fortunately, there are seeds of racial and reproductive justice being planted in Millerston and in the field of sexual health promotion more generally – for example, in partnerships between reproductive justice organizations and the Black Lives Matter movement. Health promoters in Millerston and elsewhere could contribute to planting these seeds by participating in organizing efforts among white people committed to dismantling white supremacy, such as Standing Up for Racial Justice (SURJ), or  by seeking technical assistance and training from national reproductive justice organizations such as Forward Together.  Shifting youth sexual health promotion to incorporate gender, racial, and reproductive justice frameworks means moving from a focus on paternalistically trying to modify “culture” and promoting specific contraceptives, to focusing on how to dismantle racism and enable a world where people can create the kinds of families they want.

Chris Barcelos is an Assistant Professor of Gender and Women’s Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Their research uses ethnography, discourse analysis, and visual methods to interrogate how health promotion discourses both reveal and reproduce inequalities along the lines of race, class, gender, sexuality, nation, and ability.

Gender & Society: Table of Contents 32 (3)

Read this issue here: http://journals.sagepub.com/toc/gasa/current.

Articles
SWS Presidential Address
“Are You Willing to Die for This Work?” Public Online Targeted Harassment in Higher Education
ABBY FERBER

Achieving Exclusion through Inclusion: Engendering Reputation with Gender-Inclusive Facilities at Colleges and Universities in the United States, 2001-2013
ALEXANDER K. DAVIS

Redoing Gender, Redoing Religion
HELANA DARWIN

Hybrid Masculinity and Young Men’s Circumscribed Engagement in Contraceptive Management
ANN FEFFERMAN and USHMA UPADHYAY

Negotiating Motherhood: Variations of Maternal Identities among Women in the Illegal Drug Economy
HEIDI GRUNDETJERN

Book Reviews

The Big Push: Exposing and Challenging the Persistence of Patriarchy
By Cynthia Enloe
HEIDI RADEMACHER

Beyond Trans: Does Gender Matter?
By Heath Fogg Davis
SUISUI WANG

Ready Player Two: Women Gamers and Designed Identity
By Shira Chess
LAUREN ALFREY

Abusive Endings: Separation and Divorce Violence Against Women
By Walter S. DeKeseredy, Molly Dragiewicz and Martin D. Schwartz
DANIELLE CURRIER

Vibrator Nation: How Feminist Sex-Toy Stores Changed the Business of Pleasure
By Lynn Comella
AMY BRAKSMAJER

Freedom Without Permission: Bodies and Space in the Arab Revolutions
By Frances S. Hasso and Zakia Salime
GUL MARSHALL

Blaming Mothers: American Law and the Risks to Children’s Health
By Linda C. Fentiman
EZGI BURC

Our Unions, Our Selves: The Rise of Feminist Labor Unions in Japan
By Anne Zacharias- Walsh
ANDREA CARSON

Abortion Pills, Test Tube Babies, and Sex Toys: Emerging Sexual and Reproductive Technologies in the Middle East and North Africa
Edited by L.L. Wynn and Angel M. Foster
DANA BERKOWITZ

Gender Conformity, Perceptions of Shared Power, and Marital Quality in Same- and Different-Sex Marriages

By Amanda M. Pollitt, Brandon Andrew Robinson and Debra Umberson

Marriage is often considered a place where two equal partners come together to start a life, form a family, and grow old together. However, there has been what seems like an increase in news and blog articles about women in different-sex marriages who feel that their home lives are anything but equal. For example, in her article about emotional labor (http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12063822/emotional-labor-gender-equality/), Gemma Hartley describes the emotional and relationship toll that being her family’s manager had: “It’s frustrating to be saddled with all of these responsibilities, no one to acknowledge the work you are doing, and no way to change it without a major confrontation.”

Feminist theorists have been talking for decades about heterosexual marriage as a place where inequalities between women and men are created and recreated, and these themes persist even today. Nearly as many women work outside the home as men. Still, women married to men continue to do the majority of unpaid labor in their relationships. This is true even when women make more money and have more highly respected careers than their husbands, and even when their husbands are stay-at-home dads. Clearly, gender inequalities between women and men in marriages persist.

However, what we know about power inequalities in different-sex relationships has relied on comparisons between women and men. These comparisons do not address the degree to which women and men within these couples are gender conforming, or how women conform to femininity and men conform to masculinity. When couples enact gender in conforming ways, this can maintain gender norms and inequalities in relationships, such as the belief that men should hold more power in marriages. For example, some research shows that within marriages in which women earn more income than men, women and men do more and less housework, respectively. These couples recreate relationship inequalities in household labor to maintain gender norms.

Now that we have marriage equality for same-sex couples in the U.S., questions arise about power dynamics and equality within these couples. Some scholars have argued that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in same-sex marriages have more equality in their relationships because the traditional divisions between women and men are not at play. This may be because lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are less gender conforming, or assumed to be, than heterosexual people. There may also be less pressure to adhere to the same power dynamics that heterosexual spouses tend to follow. At the same time, same-sex couples may feel pressure for their relationships to look similar to heterosexual relationships to combat stereotypes and gain legitimacy.

Pollitt
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Couple_on_a_bike_(9180325890).jpg

Understanding how gender conformity influences inequalities is important because these inequalities contribute to poorer relationship quality in marriages. In our recent study in Gender & Society, we wanted to explore how gender conformity shaped perceptions of shared power in same- and different-sex marriages and how these perceptions influenced relationship quality. It is important to expand our understanding of relationship dynamics in same-sex marriages which have received much less research attention than different-sex marriages. However, it is also important to consider how gender conformity shapes power dynamics in heterosexual couples.

We examined survey data collected from both spouses in lesbian, gay, and heterosexual marriages which allows us to consider not only how each spouses’ responses influence their own outcomes, but also how spouses influence their partner’s outcomes. We asked participants to what extent they agreed that their physical appearance and demeanor and interests, hobbies, and skills are typical of someone of their gender. We found that women married to men, men married to women, and men married to men who were more gender conforming believed that their relationships were more equal in terms of how much power they shared. These findings suggest that maintaining masculinity norms is particularly important in relationships involving a male partner. This could be true even among gay men who many would assume have flexibility in gender expression, perhaps because these men want to appear masculine so that their relationship appears more “normal”. Our findings also suggest that power between women and men in different-sex marriages may be seen as more equal when both partners are gender conforming. Considering few heterosexual marriages share power equally between spouses, these couples may perceive greater shared power because their relationship dynamics map onto gender norms and inequalities.

In contrast, we found that gender conformity had little to do with perceptions of shared power among lesbian couples. Inequalities in lesbian marriages may relate to types of femininity we did not measure in our study, such as motherhood roles. These women might also share power by creating relationship dynamics outside normative relationship structures, such as the belief that work inside or outside the home should be divided separately between partners, because there is no male partner in their relationship or because they consider gender less important.

We found that greater perceptions of shared power are better for relationship quality. Though we expected this finding, our work shows that, among women married to men, men married to women, and men married to men, relationship quality may require maintaining gender norms including men’s power in marriages. For different-sex marriages, this finding is in line with research showing that women who believe in traditional gender roles in unequal different-sex marriages have more relationship satisfaction than women who hold egalitarian beliefs in unequal marriages. Finally, we found that partners of men, regardless of their own sex, gender, or gender expression, might need to ensure that the men in their lives perceive there to be shared power in the relationship in order to maintain their own relationship satisfaction. This negotiation of power has the potential to reinforce inequalities in relationships because it is the man’s perception of power that influences their wives’, or husbands’, marital quality. Rather than assuming women and men express gender in conforming ways, we considered how gender conformity is associated with perceptions of power and marital quality to add to our understanding of the ways that gender influences how spouses interact with one another to shape inequalities in marriages.

Amanda M. Pollitt is a NICHD Postdoctoral Fellow at the Population Research Center at the University of Texas-Austin. Her research focuses on the health and wellbeing of sexual and gender minority people across the life course. Currently, she is extending that work into research on intimate relationships.

Brandon Andrew Robinson is a UC Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Gender and Sexuality Studies at UC Riverside. Brandon’s research focuses on gender and sexualities, race and ethnicity, health and HIV/AIDS, and urban poverty and homelessness. Their co-authored book Race & Sexuality is forthcoming with Polity Press.

Debra Umberson is professor of sociology and director of the Population Research Center at the University of Texas-Austin. She studies social ties and health across the life course. Recent work considers marital dynamics and health of same-sex couples and racial disparities in the loss of relationships across the life course.