Everyday Sociology Blog

Satiric Thunder: Prejudice and Masculinity

By Sally Raskoff

Is our culture changing how we define gender? Are our cultural standards about masculine and feminine easing a bit? 

There are many people who feel that gender equality has been achieved and that thus we have no need for an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), no need for affirmative action based on gender, and no need to address educational or workplace discrimination. 

Gender – and our gender norms - are embedded in our society in many different ways, and are most visible in the media. Our most popular performers conform to the gender standards of the times. Most actors who get the lead roles and can “open” a movie do have distinct physical features that align with our standards of gender. (See an earlier post of mine for examples.) The popularity of some young male celebrities who are not typically masculine has had some suggesting that our traditional definitions of gender are eroding.

Does the popularity of Johnny Depp and Zac Efron, among others, suggest change in our norms of masculinity? Both of these men can be described not only as handsome but pretty. They both have been ascribed a type of feminine attractiveness as they are perhaps more androgynous than strictly masculine. (Androgynous combines the gender characteristics ascribed to both men – andro – and women – gyn.) 

Speaking of actors, I saw Tropic Thunder, Ben Stiller’s new film the other day. This film does much more than satirize Hollywood. Most of the press on this film  focuses on either the racial issues surrounding Robert Downey Jr.’s portrayal of “a dude, playing a dude, playing another dude” or on the treatment of people with mental challenges, who are referred to in the movie as “retards”.

My reaction to the film’s presentation of these two issues aligns with my opinion on the entire project. I think it is a brilliant satiric exploration of our society’s inability to really deal with issues of difference. While the focus on race and mental disabilities are obvious – and brilliantly written and acted – the movie also raise issues about masculinity and gender norms.

Take a look at one of the ads featuring Downey. The movie’s premise rests on a film company that is making a war film, so the actors are playing actors who are playing soldiers. War films are bastions of masculinity; in them, competition and power as primary tasks and goals. The fire and expression in this ad directly relate to the connection of masculinity with danger, aggressiveness and violence. Each of the actors plays a masculine stereotype and they are all involved in uber-masculine behaviors throughout the film.

I won’t spoil the film (too much anyway) by getting more specific about which scenes actively and directly satirize (and challenge) our culture’s masculine norms; I challenge you to watch the film and look at it with a gendered lens. 

In this film and in general, it is difficult to untangle racial issues from the gender issues since racial issues are easier for our culture to discuss. This doesn’t mean we solve problems with our public discussions, since prejudice has been covert rather than overt as it had been in the past. 

It is easier for many people, especially in sociology classes, to acknowledge how race and ethnicity are part of societal structure and much more difficult to understand gender as a socially constructed category. 

Before we start the celebrations for increasing equality, let’s ponder how people perceive Tropic Thunder. Are people getting that the film is a satire, an exploration and questioning of the complexities of race, ethnicity, and gender? The people complaining about the depiction and treatment of the mentally challenged are apparently not aware of the movie’s subtle (and not so subtle) satiric twist on how people – and Hollywood – treat that subject. 

How we perceive and interpret media depends upon our standpoint, our social position, our experiences, our backgrounds, and our interactions with other people. Would one’s perception of this film differ depending on one’s religious affiliation? Age? Sense of humor? Gender? Race/ethnicity? Social class? Sexual orientation? Drug history or experience? Critical thinking ability? Military connections? Mental capacity or connection to such issues? 

Tropic Thunder is doing very well at the box office, pushing the Dark Knight out of first place. It seems that a satire on race, gender, and many other things is more popular than a superhero film that reflects and reifies our gender norms. Is this good news?

T-Shirts, Symbols and Assumptions

By Sally Raskoff

While waiting out thunderstorms in an airport recently, I spotted a rather large man wearing a big black t-shirt that stated in large bold pink letters: I  (heart) Boobs. It certainly got my attention.

My first reaction – that I kept to myself – was, “Wow, what chutzpah!” You have probably seen the reclining woman mud flaps on big trucks. This t-shirt elicited the same reaction I have when I see those mud flaps: “What a display of sexist attitudes and without any thought to the consequences of objectifying women as sex objects.”

This t-shirt made me think all the other displays of sexism in bumper stickers and other objects that many people use to broadcast their opinions and (supposed) sense of humor. The bumper stickers, “Get In, Sit Down, Shut Up” and “No Fat Chicks” come to mind as well.

When I see a bumper sticker like this, I wonder what happens when they visit their grandmothers and if their relatives, and whether their elders reacted negatively, positively, or not at all. (Maybe grandma bought it for them!)

I chuckled at this man’s shirt and his ability to walk around the airport broadcasting this message. Then he turned around. On the back of the shirt, it stated “Breast Cancer Awareness”. I realized that my assumptions of his sexism were way off base and changed my reaction immediately to one of empathy and respect. It’s not everyday you see a big macho man wearing a shirt that is to raise awareness of a disease that affects more women than men. My spouse has fought cancer twice, so I felt grateful that his shirt might raise awareness about cancer.

Later, I spotted him again with his family, waiting for their flight. His wife was wearing a kerchief on her head and it was obvious that she had new hair growing in. It was likely that she was fighting breast cancer and the shirt was his way of both supporting her and raising awareness about the disease.

So what does this have to do with sociology? I would like to focus on symbolic gestures and the ways in which we define ourselves to the world.

The symbols we use to define or express ourselves reside not only within such things as bumper stickers but in our clothing choices and many other things. What we wear and how we wear it tells people about us. For example our gender is displayed with our clothing choices as is our social class and culture.

Consider men in skirts. In Scotland and Polynesia seeing men in specific types of hip wrappings is not unusual. I used to teach at a small liberal arts college that designates one day a year for male students to wear skirts. In the U.S., this has not been a typical clothing option for men.

I was in elementary school when the Los Angeles schools allowed girls to wear pants. I remember wondering what the big deal was about controlling the clothing choices and I was quite happy to wear my pants to school, especially on cold days!

Baggy pants and large t-shirts and sweatshirts, especially those emblazoned with logos, broadcast another image that clearly tells people something about the person’s social class or racial/ethnic identity.

Tattoos tell people that a person feels strongly enough about something to ink it into their skin. Societal norms about tattoos have changed a great deal recently. Many (mostly younger) people define them as body art and an important part of their personal identity while others (mostly older) people define them as unprofessional, irresponsible, or sacrilegious.

What does the t-shirt I saw in the airport broadcast? If one only sees the front, it clearly states that this man is heterosexual and probably that he objectifies women as he is focusing on one particular body part. However, when one sees the back, one sees the entire context of the shirt’s message and thus it broadcasts that this man has been touched in some way by cancer. It broadcasts that he is thoughtful and caring about his loved ones and brings to mind the people, often families or on teams, who shave their heads to show compassion and solidarity when a family or team member is going through chemotherapy and loses their hair.

Let’s think about some other symbols that people use to identify them as aligned with various causes or issues. For example, many organizations have used the ribbons, ribbon pins, or bracelets/wristbands in various colors as fundraisers and awareness items. Yellow ribbons have long signified supporting soldiers; pink ribbon pins are linked with breast cancer; red with Aids awareness; sky blue with prostate cancer; purple with domestic violence; teal with ovarian cancer.

As for the bracelets, the Lance Armstrong Foundations has linked yellow to cancer awareness; pink signifies breast cancer; blue in the U.K. signifies the “Beat Bullying campaign (in football) while ocean blue is connected with Hurricane Katrina and light blue is for the East Asia Tsunami relief; purple is for cystic fibrosis or domestic violence; teal is ovarian cancer. Some colors are used for multiple issues such as black bracelets that have been used for Amish support, gang prevention, gun control, melanoma, mourning (Virginia Tech), POW/MIA, and sleep disorders.

The ribbons and bracelets can get confusing not only because different colors can mean different things but many people have no idea what they are in the first place! To use these symbols to raise awareness for specific causes, they need to be identified by more information. Most of them have words on them as well as the color schema although the words don’t often give direct information about the issue.

When we see other people, unconsciously or not we look at them and interpret everything on their body as a clued about their identity. Sometimes, we misinterpret these clues. For example, when walking by the volunteer table at a health center with my daughter and her friend when they were about twelve, a woman gestured to my daughter’s friend to come over and talk. The woman asked her what temple she attended and if she had had her bat-mitzvah yet. This girl was flustered not only because some unknown older adult was talking to her but because she had no idea what the woman was asking and why. The woman explained that she saw the necklace she was wearing, a Jewish star pendant, and assumed she was Jewish, observant, and could bond with her about their common faith. It turns out she wore the necklace because it was pretty, not because she went to temple or had much interest in the religion.

We try to identify people based on what we see, yet these assumptions may not be accurate! When we make assumptions about people based on erroneous assumptions about and partial knowledge of their symbolic gestures, we may miss opportunities to get to really know them.

Gender, Cats, Kittens, and Cougars

By Karen Sternheimer

I am a cat person, but I am not a cat. That might seem obvious to you, since to my knowledge cats don’t blog. But some people seem to confuse women with felines. What does this tell us about gender in the twenty-first century?

Cats have traditionally been seen as feminine, referred to as “she” even though as mammals there must be male cats too. Perhaps their grace, their demure nature can be seen as a form of a compliment to female humans. But many of the connections are less than flattering.

Arguments, altercations and fights between women have a special term: catfight. This summer Indy Race car driver Danica Patrick was filmed arguing with fellow racer Milka Duno. When I Googled "Danica Patrick" and "catfight" I got thousands of hits, including forty hits from mainstream news organizations. 

Technically, the camera caught Patrick and Duno having an argument, not a fight. But days later cameras caught a physical altercation during a WNBA game, giving the sport rare news coverage. Once again media organizations used the “c” word. Fistfights happen regularly in men’s sports and are covered by the news, particularly if they are really violent, but they are just called “fights”. Maybe this is because men fight much more often than women. According to the FBI, in 2006 79 percent of aggravated assaults were committed by men, and they committed 75 percent of other assaults (like fistfights). 

Women who fight challenge assumptions about female passivity, but the “c” word tends to make female fighting more of an amusement than a serious issue. Have you ever seen the “reality” show Bad Girls' Club? I’ve only seen one episode, but it seems like they choose fight-prone women to live in a house together, encourage them to drink and watch the fight that inevitably comes next.

A 2007 reality show, Age of Love, pitted “kittens” (women in their twenties) against “cougars” (women in their forties) to compete for the affection of a man in his thirties.  (I’m not sure what happened to women in their thirties, but that’s another issue). At a time when women are increasingly likely to be unmarried, this show hit a particular nerve, framing the older women as conniving, desperate vixens and the younger ones as hot “sex kittens,” perhaps less intelligent or accomplished than the older women, but, well, hot.

I’m not sure where this new term for women who date younger men came from, but it is interesting on many levels. First, men who date younger women are not usually described as predators unless the woman is under eighteen. (They might be called dirty old men, but typically that’s only if their advances are unwanted.) Demi Moore marries a man fifteen years her junior, and voila, she is a cougar. George Clooney dates a woman seventeen years younger, and he is just George Clooney. George follows a long line of Hollywood stars that date and/or marry much younger women. Cary Grant, Clooney’s predecessor in many ways, appeared as the male lead opposite Grace Kelley (25 years younger), Audrey Hepburn (25 years younger), and Eva Marie Saint (twenty years younger) to name a few. 

One of my all-time favorite movies, North by Northwest, starred Saint and Grant as romantic leads despite their twenty-year age gap. Jessie Royce Landis played Grant’s mother in the movie—and she was less than eight years older than her movie “son” Grant.

Older men might be called a "sugar daddy", but most of the pejorative terms are reserved for the women they are involved with (gold digger, husband stealer, whore, and so forth). 

The cougar moniker also implies that older women are predatory, stalking their victims before pouncing on them, rendering them helpless. Older men with younger partners are just thought of as lucky or entitled, especially if they have wealth and power. Calling women cougars also implies that at their age they need to pursue men, that they have less value and therefore will not be pursued by men.

Finally, cougars, cats, and kittens are not people. Using these terms dehumanizes women, even if it does so unintentionally. What’s fascinating is that women use these terms as much, if not more than men. As author Leora Tanenbaum recounts in her book Slut! Growing Up Female With a Bad Reputation, women have historically sought to minimize the status of others in order to bolster their own within a narrow framework of female opportunity. She interviewed women of all ages who were labeled “sluts” at some point (although many actually had no sexual experience despite the label), and found that labeling is both the result of gender inequality and a means to reproduce it. Women have traditionally been valued based on their sexual appeal to men, and a multitude of words exist to keep women within these boundaries.

Yes, I know most people don’t mean any harm when they talk of catfights or cougars. But even when used in fun, these terms reaffirm that women’s worth is linked to the men they are with and how well they conform to gendered expectations.

The Politics of Double Minority Status

By Janis Prince Inniss

As the competition for the Democratic nomination seemed to wage on endlessly between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, much was made of their historical bids to be the Democratic Party candidate for the White House: he as the first African American contender with a realistic chance to become President of the United States, and she as the first female in serious contention for that job. Each time I hear or read these descriptions, however, I think about who is missing in framing these firsts in this way.

Clinton herself pointed out these twin themes of “first woman” “first African American” in her concession speech: 

When we first started, people everywhere asked the same questions:

Could a woman really serve as Commander-in-Chief? Well, I think we answered that one.

And could an African American really be our President? Senator Obama has answered that one. ..

As the “woman candidate” Senator Clinton’s White House bid highlighted feminist themes and much was made in the news about her heavy support among women. Senator Clinton’s concession speech itself drew heavily on such themes; she thanked older female supporters who were born before women in the U.S. could vote and said:

(W)hen I was asked what it means to be a woman running for President, I always gave the same answer: that I was proud to be running as a woman but I was running because I thought I'd be the best President. But I am a woman, and like millions of women, I know there are still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious...Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it.

Regarding the “first African American” angle of this saga, we saw headlines such as these: From ABC News, “Obama Becomes First Black Democratic Presidential Nominee”, and from the New York Times, “First Black Candidate to Lead a Major Party Ticket”. Senator Obama himself gave a speech on race that has been called “historic” in which he spoke of his racial heritage, addressed the brouhaha regarding his former pastor, and also about the complexity of race relations in the U.S.

What is concealed from the way these public discussions have been framed in describing how far we’ve come? The absence of those of double minority status— women “of color” is concealed by describing Senator Clinton as the “first woman” rather than “first white woman” and Senator Obama as the first African American as opposed to the first African American man. If the combined race and gender of the candidates were happenstance this would all be irrelevant, but is it?

Is it equally likely that the first African American presidential nominee would be a woman as it is a man? Sociologists who observe double minority status and its impact on women of color would predict that the first black candidate to reach such heights would be male. (I am differentiating between realistic versus symbolic presidential runs such as Shirley Chisholm’s in 1972; Chisholm made history by being the first African American to run for president of the U.S.; she won no primaries.) 

Almost three-quarters of all U.S. presidents were senators or governors before claiming the top prize: fifteen of the country’s 43 presidents were U.S. senators while sixteen parlayed being governor into being president. Because being senator or governor is a major pipeline to the presidency, I decided to have a look at how well African Americans and women are represented among these two groups. Currently, Barack Obama is the only African American senator and he is only the third African American to ever hold that position. (Carol Mosley Braun, the one woman in this exclusive circle announced her intention to seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2003, but dropped out even before the first major electoral event in that process.) 

How about governors? When disgraced New York governor Eliot Spitzer resigned, David Paterson became the nation’s fourth black governor; notably, only two (Douglas Wilder and Deval Patrick) of the four black governors were elected. So of the few African Americans in the presidential pipeline, only one, Mosley Braun, has been female. 

Is it by chance that the first woman who made it as far as Senator Clinton did in the U.S. presidential race was white? Women in many countries around the world have ascended to the top political ranks for many years (for example, Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Eugenia Charles, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, and Portia Simpson-Miller), but we need to consider the context of race and gender in American politics. Again, looking at the presidential pipeline of senators and governors is instructive. Of 100 senators, sixteen are women and all of these women are white! There are currently eight female governors of the country’s fifty states and they too are white. 

According to the Census Bureau, the racial/ethnic makeup of the U.S. is as follows: 75.1 percent white, 12.3 percent African American/Black, 12.5 percent Hispanic or Latino, 3.6 percent Asian, 0.9 percent American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.1 percent Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander. Clearly, the political offices examined here are in no way reflective of the racial make up of the country. Neither does the sex ratio explain any of this. For all of these groups, except for Hispanics, women outnumber men. 

The candidacies of senators Obama and Clinton do stand in contrast to the domination of white males in U.S. politics. However, there has been little public dissection of Obama’s gender or Clinton’s race, and this lack of analysis conceals the challenges double minorities, such as black women, face in American society.

Girls, Boys, and Violence: Who's Really at Risk?

By Sally Raskoff

I was in a hotel elevator recently, heading down for breakfast. The doors opened on a floor and there were two women and about eight girls who looked to be around the ages of seven or eight. To the side was a man who gestured them to enter the elevator and follow them in. The women declined his offer and gestured for him to go ahead and one said that they would catch the next elevator. He continued to gesture them towards the elevator, the women did their best to stop the girls from entering and said very politely to him, “No, you go ahead.” 

Eventually he laughed and said as he continued to gesture, “Hey, I’m not one of those, I’m not one of those guys on the post office wall, I’m OK! Really, I’m an OK guy!” 

When he said this, the girls seemed oblivious to his meaning but the women recoiled and put their arms around the girls and pulled them back while the one woman said louder and with emphasis, “No, really, you go ahead, we’re fine.”

He got on the elevator, the group of girls did not, and we rode down to the ground floor. 

I was a bit creeped out by his response and turned to look out the elevator windows and away from him. Later I asked my spouse, who was with me for that exchange, if he had noticed it and thought anything about it. He hadn’t really paid attention to the content of the interaction, since he was ready to get breakfast and didn’t care who got on the elevator as long as someone did! (He’s not a sociologist although he has developed a sociological imagination from living with me for the last 24 years!)

Later at the family gathering we were attending, I asked my relatives their opinion about the exchange. All the women were as appalled as I was at the man’s comments. 

Our reactions had strong commonalities: why did the man choose to define himself as a non-predator? Why did his mind go there so fast when there were a myriad of other things he could have said? And, why was he laughing about such a premise, when his comments had made the women visibly uncomfortable?

In our society, we socialize women to be aware of threats, especially from strangers. Girls are kept closer than boys when they are playing outside. Women don’t tend to go out alone at night, and there are a host of other protective behaviors that constrain what they do on a daily basis. We are taught these things to stay safe. In general, men don’t learn these things and they don’t grow up thinking about how safe they are at any given moment.

Whether or not there are real threats, girls and women often assume that we must not trust strangers and not expose ourselves to outside dangers, especially when we’re young.

Let’s look at the data on violence and assault to see if these protective behaviors are useful for women and girls. The National Violence against Women Survey, published in 2000 and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, validates what we know from other studies on these issues.

In Exhibit 12, from the NIJ/CDC study, among those victimized as a minor, physical assault by a caretaker is the most likely threat for both gender groups while rape (by any perpetrator) is slightly more likely for women compared to men. This data show that 40% of women and 53.8% of men have been physically assaulted by a caretaker before they were eighteen; 9% of women and 1.9% of men were raped before they were eighteen.

Exhibit 14 illustrates that relatives and acquaintances are the most likely perpetrator of rape for both men and women prior to the age of eighteen. Stranger rape accounts for a smaller portion of rapes for females than for males.

If you’re wondering about the age distribution of rape victims, Exhibit 13 shows us that 21.6% of female victims and 48.0% of male victims are less than 12 years old. Note how the pattern is different for females and males: rape becomes less likely for males as they get older while for females, there is a more gradual distribution and the most prevalent ages are 12-17 years old and 18-24. 

Exhibit 21 illustrates the adult victimization types and shows that, compared to childhood and adolescence, the rates of physical assault decline for both men and women while the stalking threat increases along with the rape risk for men – and only slightly for women. 

If our main question is the source of the threat and from whom should be protecting ourselves, let’s take one more look at the data: what are the victim-perpetrator relationship patterns for adults?

Exhibit 27 shows that once we are adults, the source of the greatest threat changes-- although the most radical change is for men. Adult males are much more likely to be raped or assaulted by strangers while women’s threat comes primarily from their intimate partners.

Considering this data, do we socialize men and women appropriately? 

If we socialize girls and women to suspect strangers and people outside their families, does that work effectively to protect them since most of the real threat comes from people they know?

If we socialize boys and men to assume they are safe from outside threats, are they adequately prepared to protect themselves in childhood and adolescence from people they know and from strangers when they are adults? 

In any case, should we be socializing people at all to be fearful of attack? If we do that consistently, what might happen to the fabric of our society? Will we retreat from social life, as we fear people we know and those we don’t?

It is not effective to teach people to fear those who are less threatening and to trust those who could be a threat, but this is exactly what we socialize women to do. It is also not effective to teach people they are not at risk and can do just about anything they want, yet this is how we socialize men. 

If you were crafting a social policy and educational plan to effectively reduce violent behavior, what would you focus on?

Free to Marry

By Sally Raskoff

The May 2008 California Supreme Court decision effectively adds a second state to the (short) list of states that do not prohibit marriage for consenting adults of the same gender. The ruling reflects the result of many years of social change that has pressured our country to live up to its ideals of freedom, equality, and justice for all. The Civil Rights Movement was the most visible event in recent history, as many radical changes occurred in a relatively short period of time. At that time, we effectively identified how race, ethnicity, and gender issues are rife with inequality and thus problematic for our country.

Social change does not move quickly or steadily. In stops and starts, forward towards new practices and backward to known traditions, society resists change at every step. Some refer to this dynamic as a dialectic process in which whatever exists creates its own contradictions, creating struggles which eventually “resolve” or morph into a new reality. Marx described the life span of capitalism as a dialectic process, for example. 

While societies do not change quickly, they are always changing. Things today are certainly not the same as they were fifty years ago, or even five years ago. With technological changes and resource pressures, the way we live our lives has changed and will continue to change. Younger generations grow up in altogether different circumstances than previous generations thus their ways of thinking and expressing themselves sets them apart from others.

With regard to marriage laws, it is clear that we have seen some changes and we’ll continue to do so.

Marriage has long been a relationship defined by property and resources. Marriage based on love, emotional ties, and individual choice is a relatively recent social invention. That notwithstanding, marriage still is a legal contract that involves ownership and property rights. At the same time marriage effectively gives people license to have sex – although that, too, is tied to ownership and property since our societal norms of marital sex assume subsequent procreation and offspring – with appropriate naming and rights of inheritance. 

Our heterosexual norms are tied to male dominance – clearly seen when looking at marital laws. Historically, brides are women or property transferred from fathers to husbands. One look at a traditional marriage ceremony confirms this symbolism when the parents hand over the bride to the groom at the start of the ritual. 

Since men marry women – and give them their name (identifying one’s property!) – the power relations are clearly defined. Men had not been able to marry other men (and women to marry women) because that would tamper with the power structure based on gender. Homophobia helps to maintain this structure since it makes people afraid of both the idea of and the people who may be participating in same-sex couplings. 

Seen in this light, allowing same-sex marriage is progress towards gender equality.

American society’s marriage laws have always reflected its evolving attitudes toward race, ethnicity, sex/gender, and sexual orientation.

Prior to the civil rights era, anti-miscegenation laws outlawed marriage between white and non-white people thus protecting the property rights and inheritance patterns that kept the dominant group white and all other groups, well, not-white. 

While the U.S. Supreme Court deemed those laws unconstitutional in the late 1960s, it took until 1999 for all fifty states to vote those laws off their books. After being sued by inter-racial couples having trouble getting the paperwork to legally wed, Alabama finally asked their voters in 1999 to weigh in on eliminating or keeping their state anti-miscegenation laws, even as the law had been unconstitutional for over thirty years. (It passed, 60/40.)

While most marriages are still endogamous – people still tend to marry people like themselves – in contemporary American society we have the right to marry whomever we choose no matter their ethnicity or racial identity—as long as they are they opposite sex ( unless you live in California or Massachusetts).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only two percent of marriage partnerships are inter-racial. This does vary by state and region, of course, but nationwide it is only two percent. In spite of the Supreme Court decision, most marriages are intra-racial. 

This is all part of the inevitable social changes that come about since we live in a country with an elective affinity between love-based marriages and a strong belief in individual freedoms. We socialize people to grow up and fall in love, marry their sweetheart, and settle down to create a family. Those norms have long been informed by norms of heterosexuality and cultural heterogeneity although the latter is not as strong a norm as it once was.

When states make their marriage laws based on sex or gender definitions, they often complicate things further. For example, Texas defines their marriage laws on chromosomes, thus an XX female can marry an XY female because they do have the expected chromosomal pairing. One wonders if someone with X₀ and other variations can marry in Texas at all!

Add to this transgender issues and we see that our culture has some distance to travel before we really do embrace equality and justice for all. It’s not just a matter of saying that people should be able to love whomever they want. It’s more a matter of equalizing our social categories and dismantling the privileges and barriers based on sex, gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation.

From the 1960s U.S. Supreme Court to the 2008 California State Supreme Court decisions, the highest bodies in our legal system have so far demonstrated that we still do strive for these goals.

Beauty Myths and Magazines

By Karen Sternheimer

I’ve recently reverted back to an old teenage habit…sort of. Last year I got a letter saying that my frequent flier miles would soon expire and that I could easily convert them to magazine subscriptions. I hadn’t subscribed to a magazine in years, so I went nuts. I ordered magazines about politics, technology, business, travel, and fashion.

In my teen years I devoured fashion magazines like Glamour, Cosmopolitan, Vogue, and the now defunct Mademoiselle, and swapped them with friends to make sure no beauty advice would pass without my knowledge. I saved old issues in my closet for years just in case I would ever want to look at them again, like the reference books that are on my shelves today. When my old house went up for sale years later, my mother told me to take them or toss them. I tossed them. 

After I graduated from high school I stopped reading the magazines cold turkey. I don’t remember exactly why, but it probably had something to do with a lack of time to read them and (more to the point) the lack of disposable income to buy them. When the first fashion mag showed up in my mailbox last year it was like reuniting with an old friend that I hadn’t talked to in years. Yes, I had perused a magazine or two while waiting to have my hair cut, but it’s not the same if you can’t tear out the samples and dog-ear the particularly relevant advice about hair products to revisit later. Unlike the other magazines I ordered, the beauty ones required very little concentration or commitment to read since they are mostly filled with ads. They could be my secret escape.

As a sociologist, I am also deeply aware of the very narrow version of beauty these magazines typically promote. Yes, most of the women are impossibly thin, white or near-white in complexion, tall and blonde. Many of the articles are about getting/keeping/pleasing/marrying a man, and more than anything, they promote the idea that women’s worth is forever linked to how we look. If that’s not enough, in the world of most fashion magazines, beauty is something that comes from consumption, not necessarily from character.

That said, I think we often sell readers of these magazines short when we presume that they are merely victims of the beauty industry. I have known a fashion victim or two in my years (and spot them regularly on the streets of Los Angeles), but let’s not presume that all women and girls simply read these magazines passively. In a now classic 1984 cultural studies text, Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature author Janice Radway interviewed women who read romance novels and found that rather than just internalizing the messages of idealized romance they contain, readers used them to escape the drudgery of everyday life. Likewise, we cannot presume that fashion magazine readers just mindlessly adopt the perspectives of the magazines. How readers make meaning of texts—a central goal of cultural studies research—often depends on the social context that each person lives within.

Looking back on my own relationship with fashion magazines, I read them more as a fantasy about what my impending adult life might be like, and for instruction about how to best be ready for that life. The magazines I read in the 80s, like many today, provided advice about careers and living independently in cities. They told stories about having grown-up relationships with men, which my friends and I had no real frame of reference for (and let’s be honest, most seventeen-year-olds would rather not talk to mom and dad much about this topic!).

So why my excitement today? I have had enough experience with being a grown-up to know that the magazines’ advice is just a guess, as much advice often is. Fashion magazines offer the promise of self-improvement, or as historian Joan Jacobs Brumberg describes, a body project. Brumberg’s study of adolescent girls throughout the twentieth century reveals that these projects continually shift. Unlike the nineteenth century, when girls wrote in their diaries about being better morally, most of the projects today focus on the external. 

Why did this happen? We can’t blame fashion magazines for the changes, since the ones that existed then bore little resemblance to those of today. Brumberg argues that as women have gradually gained more political power and experienced less external regulation that they have been encouraged to regulate themselves internally. For instance, nineteenth-century women were often discouraged from exercise, but wore binding corsets. Starting in the 1920s women shed these physically restricting undergarments, but took up “slimming” in order to restrict their body size.

So the magazines both reflect and reproduce images of beauty—if we took them away, girls and women wouldn’t necessarily feel better about how they look. From my personal experience, I read the magazines from the perspective that I was one of “them.” Although not tall, tan, or blonde, as many models in the magazines I bought were, I saw myself as like them in some strange way. And the advice in the magazines about make-up tips and products to try helped me feel part of this thing called beauty. Yes, Marx might say I was experiencing false consciousness—you might say I was deluded. And certainly there might be people who read the magazines and feel inadequate, but we can’t make generalizations either way. 

That said, I can’t say that I disagree with many of the critiques of the beauty industry author Naomi Wolf offers in her book The Beauty Myth or with Jean Kilbourne's analysis of advertising in her book Killing Us Softly. But we can’t analyze magazines and presume to know how people make sense of them. Sometimes we think that criticizing things we like makes us hypocrites or killjoys. We don’t have to be either; we can both enjoy and deconstruct forms of media culture we consume creating the best of both worlds: critical consumers who can have fun reading a magazine once in a while. And learn new make-up tips.

Gendered Disparities: Maintaining Masculinity

By Sally Raskoff

Have you ever wondered why men make a higher average wage than women? Why men take out the garbage and women do the laundry? Why most people who experience the battered end of domestic violence are women and those doing the battering are primarily men? Why men who are battered by their wives don’t call for help? Why men fix the car and women arrange the social events? Why we’ve had mostly male politicians in the highest offices? Why women suffer more depression than men while men have more cardiovascular issues? 

Men and women with the same character traits often receive different treatment even if they are doing the same work. Witness the “Barbara Streisand Effect” in which film directors who run a tight set, get the filming done on time, and make an award winning movie are lauded and awarded if they are men while they are often disparaged and second-guessed if they are women.

In the 2008 Presidential race, Hillary Clinton deals with gender stereotypes while Barack Obama deals with racial and ethnic stereotypes—the press acknowledges that these are similar issues and problems. However, some are talking about how it will be tougher for Hillary to overcome these stereotypes and assumptions. 

It’s important to recognize that gender and the very definition of gender is built into the structure of our society. And this societal embedding of gender gives it its strength. 

Our society is structured by patriarchy, the rule or dominance of men. Men, as the dominant group, are assigned the characteristics of dominance, e.g., power, leadership, “protector” and “provider” functions, competitiveness, assertiveness, and aggression, while women, the subordinate group, are assigned the characteristics of the powerless whose purpose is to support and/or entertain the powerful, e.g., nurturance, emotionality, fragility, and objectification. We call these masculine traits and feminine traits, respectively, and raise boys and girls to expect and practice them even though they are human traits, regardless of one’s sex.

Sex and gender are two different constructs. Sex indicates the bodily differences of which we are taught there are only two categories: male and female. Gender indicates the social differences, in both personal identity and social role, based on sex and into which we expect people to conform. (The surprisingly frequent occurrence of intersex infants, the existence of transgender issues, and the existence of more than two gender groups in other cultures all call into question our two firm categories of both sex and gender, yet that will be a blog for another day.)

All societies assign different traits to different gender groups , but every culture does it differently. What we call masculine and “manly” may not be assigned to people with male bodies in another society. In our culture, however, masculine means power and men are expected to be strong, in-charge, and protective.

In our culture, we have specific definitions of masculinity and femininity yet many people feel that we’ve moved beyond them at this point in our society’s existence. Gender definitions can and do change, but they don’t change very quickly, and the definitions not only affect our individual lives, they affect everything in society. 

The U.S. has experienced at least two women’s movements that, along with economic demands, have expanded the social roles for women to include “provider expectations” (among other things) yet we’ve not experienced a parallel men’s movement for expanding the social roles of men. Research is highlighting more “involved fathers” who are more than just babysitters to their children, yet we do not have anything near gender equality in families. That we have to call men “involved” fathers is similar to saying “woman” doctor to highlight that the person doing something is not the typical, expected, or normative person to do so. 

Media can be a mirror for our society since what shows up in our various forms of entertainment can help us see our culture more clearly. Let’s see what we will see when we look at the top male actors in our society, those who get the leading roles in major motion pictures, make the most money, and who have had some longevity and/or consistency in this most difficult and exclusive occupation. As you look at their photos in the movie, consider how their physical characteristics (and the roles that they have played) resonate (or not) with those masculine traits.

The resemblance between the actors from the 1920s to present day is quite amazing. A young Richard Burton resembles Ben Affleck, for example. If you cycle through the movie quick enough, it seems that there are many pictures of just a few men, all of whom could be related. Their physical traits include strong facial features (the jawline in particular), muscles (as particularly noticeable in the open or “missing shirt” photos), and few options for their facial expressions. 

They gaze straight into the camera and to the side, yet both poses can have different meanings. Those stares at the camera are part of a pose that is intense and typically intended for a lover while the side gazes are more menacing or threatening to others off screen. If you recognize the films with which some of these photos resonate, these actors play lovers and fighters, military men and cowboys. Some have played the bad guy but that still rare for most of them.

All of them have had roles in which they romance women. Only a few have played non-heterosexual men; those roles either signaled the end of their leading man career, jumped them into acting from a musical career, downplayed the role as an attempt to show “real” acting ability, or focused on societal issues without delving much about the character’s relationship(s). 

Even more telling, these actors seem to live very public heterosexual lives. While rumors may occur in some cases, the non-heterosexual sexual orientation of Rudolph Valentino, Rock Hudson, and James Dean were only publicized after their deaths. You might wonder whether such information should be in the public eye at all, but notice that if one is perceived as straight, the career continues. 

Homophobia, of the fear of homosexuality or “homosexuals” is still with us as a primary tool of patriarchy. It helps to keep the dominant group as dominant. And our top male actors demonstrate that heterosexuality is our preferred form of masculinity.

Masculine traits are used to reinforce the norms for men to be powerful, and this includes a norm of heterosexuality. With men as the dominant group, they dominate the less powerful group of women. If a man steps outside the norms of masculinity, this would equate him with women. This can explain why the words used to harass boys or men are words equating them with women. Before they were aimed at people who prefer same-sex partners, the words "faggot" and "fag" referred disparagingly to women; while the term to insult women emerges in 1521, it was reassigned to “male homosexual” in 1914.

In the book Gender and Power, Connell refers to societal gender regimes in which hegemonic forms of masculinity constrain the ways in which men can be men. There are few variations of masculinity that men can experience without losing their place in the powerful group. If too many people in the powerful group deny their power and act differently, the entire group loses its power. Thus masculinity norms, including the heterosexual component, work to keep men at least acting heterosexual. 

My fun example of looking at the faces and projections of our top male actors is but one small example of where we can see this dynamic taking place. Keep your eyes open and see where else you can identify the dynamics of gender.

Bartenders and Oprah

By Sally Raskoff

Recently, I traveled to the Southwest for a conference. This was a mid-size city, not an urban megalopolis or a small town. I was taking a break from the meeting, eating lunch, and sitting in a restaurant, adjacent to the bar area. The bar was busy; there was football on the television and lots of people moving in and out. 

I was admiring the characteristics of the crowd, noticing the biker t-shirts, the trucker hats, the business suits, and the great variety of people gathered in one space. The bar was set below the area where I was seated, so I had a wide view of the entire room. 

The bartenders were a congenial bunch, talking loudly to people who were regulars, to people who were from out of town, and to people who showed up to watch the game.

One bartender in particular, Phil, had a loud and distinctive voice, a very healthy sense of humor, and an interest in people. The bartenders were all men with jeans and black shirts while the servers were both men and women. 

It seemed like any gathering spot across the country with middle and working class patrons. The ambiance was informal and orderly. Men were the dominant participants in the room; as they reacted to the football game the women either flirted with men at the bar or quietly ate at their tables.

As my food arrived, I settled in and focused on my lunch and plans for the afternoon. The sound of the bar faded into the background.

All of a sudden, I was surprised to hear Phil the bartender yell out in his distinctive voice, “Hey, Bob! Did you see that Oprah? That one with the twins?”

The sounds in the bar seemed to pause for a moment (to let Bob answer?) but then picked up and continued as usual. Bob did answer, by yelling back, “No! I don’t watch that show. … But I like you anyway.” Everyone in the area laughed and continued talking. 

What got my attention? Phil’s comment was contrary to typical gender norms. 

When norms are breached, typically there are reactions, people look, people say something, sometimes people get up and do something to reestablish the norms and restore order. 

In this situation, Bob did make a comment that underscored the norm breach of the Phil’s query. By adding, “I like you anyway,” he acknowledged that Phil’s question was atypical for a man, especially for a man in a bar. 

In some situations, more people might have teased Phil. In other situations, some people might have harassed Phil. In yet other situations, some people might have physically confronted or assaulted Phil. 

Is Oprah known as a show for everyone or for specific types of people in our society? It is known as a women’s show. If you watch it, the majority of the studio audience is typically women unless the show's theme is specifically for men. 

Phil’s very public question to Bob made it clear that he watches Oprah. Bob’s comment, delivered in a comical way, served to acknowledge that Phil’s television preferences were not shared. In some settings, this simple question would have made Phil a target for homophobia. 

Homophobia, or the irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexual people, reinforces the gender power structure in our society. Men belong to the dominant group and sanctions are typically heavy if they violate the norms of masculinity. These norms include being aggressive, powerful, assertive, unemotional. The norm also assumes heterosexuality.

If a member of the dominant group doesn’t follow the norms of the time, society reinforces the norms by punishing the norm breaker. Thus, homophobia helps to force men to act masculine or, as punishment, be considered part of the non-dominant group (women). This explains why parents and families worry about boys who seem “feminine” and why boys and men are called “pussy”, “fag” or “gay” when they do not act “like men” or otherwise express non-masculine traits (e.g., emotion, nurturing, support).

You might be wondering why Phil asked Bob if he had seen the Oprah show on twins. Eventually I noticed the two waitresses who had just started their shift. They and the other waitresses were wearing their prescribed uniform of skirts and blue shirts but these two had something in common. They both had bleached blonde permed hair (with dark roots) held in a ponytail. They looked like twins.

Do you think that the crowd didn’t tease or harass Phil because (a) they knew him, (b) they saw that he was teasing the women who looked like twins rather than really asking Bob if he watched the Oprah show on twins, (c) they were mostly from out of town and thus didn’t want to intrude upon the local norms, (d) no one there was homophobic, or (e) it was a gay bar (thus Phil’s comment wasn’t anything out of the norm for that locale)?

I think it was mixed between a, b, & c; those three reasons were all salient in some way while (d) isn’t really possible in such a diverse setting and (e) was not a factor in this particular example.

Have you ever had your attention called to someone’s atypical comment or behavior? What might have been “behind the scenes” that you didn’t notice at the time: gender norms, homophobia, or other dynamics that can be discovered with your sociological imagination?

Sex: It's Not What You Think

By Sally Raskoff

Have you seen the news items about Thomas Beatie and his wife expecting a child August 2008? Mr. Beatie was born female but transitioned to a man by undergoing hormone therapy and having sex reassignment surgery on his breasts but not on his lower anatomy. When they decided to have a baby, he stopped taking the hormones, they used artificial insemination, and he successfully got pregnant.

Both Mr. and Mrs. Beatie were on Oprah recently and the news media picked up the story: Pregnant Man! Oprah’s interview was very careful but thorough, asking the Beaties questions about who they were and how this pregnancy thing worked. Mr. Beatie was quite open about how he came to be a man, how he met and married his wife, how and why they got pregnant, how their neighbors feel about it, and how life has changed since they went to People magazine and Oprah to share their story (see clips).

TV Interview with Oprah

 

Part 1

 

 

Part 2

 

 

Part 3

 

 

Part 4

Since the new media has gotten the story, various sources have been handling it with differing degrees of care. CNN interviewed his neighbors who look incredulous about Mr. Beatie’s pregnancy.

CNN clip

While there are plenty of other examples of how the news media is (mis)handling this story, I’d like to point out that this situation really shouldn’t be unexpected, nor should it be surprising.

Looking at this situation from a sociological perspective, we remember that sex and gender and sexual orientation are three distinct and separate, albeit related, concepts. Sex has to do with the body, gender has to do with the social roles we ascribe to people in various sex categories, and sexual orientation has to do with to whom and/or what types of people one is attracted sexually. While we are taught and socialized to think that sex and gender are dichotomous categories that are inextricably linked (male=men and female=women) and that sexual orientation has a normative form (heterosexuality), the research shows that these categories are more fluid and flexible. 

Even something that seems straightforward--sex—varies. Some “intersex” babies have chromosomal variations that make their sex indeterminate (Not just XY and XX but also XXY, X0, XXX, those with the mosaic pattern of both XX and XY, and others) and others are born with hormonal or other developmental variations (for example, humans with XX chromosomes but whose bodies appear male, those with XY who appear female, those who appear female but puberty brings them into full functioning male form, and those whose genitalia are ambiguous). 

Gender varies too, despite the tremendous social pressures to socialize males into “masculine” men and females into “feminine” women. Men experience pressure to be one type of “masculine” with few variations, and though women have more latitude in our culture to express their femininity in different ways, there is still pressure for them to be traditionally “feminine” in some way.

And of course, sexual orientation varies. We currently use the terms heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual (but interestingly, rarely asexual) to depict those categories into which people fit. This concept is a difficult one to study scientifically since concepts should ideally be clearly defined and applicable – something that sexual orientation surely isn’t. 

We use these terms as if they clearly defines our sexual identity and lets us and others know the gender of our preferred sex partner. For example, heterosexual signifies that the person prefers the other gender for their sex partner(s). However, we do know that many people who will say they are heterosexual have had same-sex sex partners, thus how meaningful is the term? In their studies on sexual behavior, the Centers for Disease Control has abandoned these terms in favor of identifying the gender of sex partners (Men who have Sex with Men, or MSM) to clarify the behavior rather than the identity.

We not only prioritize sexual orientation categories, we normalize them by socializing people to believe that heterosexuality is the norm and anything else is deviant. While more Americans accept homosexuality and bisexuality now compared with previous generations, people who aren’t heterosexual still do not experience the same acceptance as heterosexual couples. 

In many contemporary societies and cultures, people whose sexual orientation doesn’t align with the normative category are either killed by the state (as in Iran), jailed by the authorities or considered mentally ill by medical professionals, mentally reprogrammed by religious and other groups who think gay and lesbian people can think themselves straight, or physically attacked by people whose own self identity is threatened by their very existence.

Historically the medical establishment has defined sex, gender, and sexual orientation variations as syndromes, diseases, and genetic or other types of defects and thus potentially fixable by medical or psychological technologies. Thus sexual ambiguity often results in medical intervention and surgery to “normalize” the appearance of the genitalia even if surgery impairs functioning.

In recent years, transgender people have, like Mr. Beatie, come out of the shadows and have spoken out about their wish to live as normal a life as possible. For example, Mianne Bagger asked the LPGA if she could compete in their women’s golfing competitions but they refused since she was formerly male. Lynn Conway proved her expertise and brilliant mind with her advances in computer science but lost her job when she transitioned to become a woman. 

Ms. Bagger has played in other golf tournaments and Ms. Conway has found work with other companies. The limited acceptance they’ve received may be in part because they consistently present themselves as female and have adopted a consistent gendered social role.

Mr. Beatie, on the other hand, did not change his genitalia and reproductive system, and provides us with a situation that tests our resolve to understand sex and gender, since he is legally a man and he is indeed pregnant. Prior to this event, he and his wife had led a life similar to their neighbors. Like their neighbors, wanted to reproduce and did so in the way that was possible for them. (Mrs. Beatie is infertile).

The Beaties have used reproductive and sex assignment technologies to enhance their lives. The concept of “cultural lag” suggests that as our technology changes, our culture doesn’t always equip us with ways to understand these changes right away. The Beaties used our technologies in the way we have designed them, but it’s safe to say that most people have trouble understanding and respecting their choices.

If a man can get pregnant, a woman can be a father. It’s possible that a male-to-female transgendered person can father a child, probably with a surrogate if she is married to a man or with her female partner if she is partnered with a woman. I imagine this has already happened somewhere and people simply thought it was a woman and her partner who had to use a surrogate or a lesbian couple who used a donor. 

If this situation (a pregnant man!) disturbs you, consider that all the years we have been donating sperm and adopting kids. Having children through these means is typically socially acceptable to just about everyone, right? These alternative ways to build a family are also quite common. Think of the people you know who have been involved in an adoption or who had used a sperm donor or, more recently, in egg donations or surrogacy. 

We tend not to find practices that reinforce our societal values and norms problematic. But when people use technology to become visibly different what we expect, they might wind up on Oprah.

Everyday Sociology Talk: Why Do Some Polilitical Wives "Stand By Their Man"?

Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and others in politics have recently been part of very public sex scandals. What are the sociological implications of these stories? And what can we learn about relationships, gender, sexuality, and power from these political scandals?

Here are some of our ideas...tell us about yours!

Fiction Meets Fact: Juno and Teen Pregnancy

By Karen Sternheimer

I finally had the chance to see Juno this weekend after practically everyone has told me to go see it. Although I was miffed that I already heard all of the funniest lines on the commercials (but isn’t that always the case these days?), I found it to be a great movie and very different from the typical teen pregnancy morality tale. (Spoiler alert: I reveal some key plot points here, so if you haven’t seen it, go see it, and then come back and read this blog.)

Unlike the after school special genre I grew up on, this pregnant teen is not a “bad girl” or pariah—she is, after all, the character we are encouraged to most identify with. She is not the pregnant teen we have seen on Jerry Springer, Montel, or years ago on Ricki Lake, boldly promiscuous and claiming that she got pregnant on purpose, as the audience boos mercilessly.

Juno instead is everygirl, the girl who feels slightly out of place in high school (who doesn’t?) and finds the whole situation of adolescence a bit absurd. She is wise enough to know she lacks the maturity to be a mother or to make some of the decisions she now must make, but naïve enough to tell the infertile Jennifer Garner character (and potential adoptive mom) that she’s lucky not to be pregnant.

Juno isn’t the happy-go-lucky sexaholic many teens are portrayed as either. When she is offered flavored condoms at an abortion clinic by teen working at the reception desk, a repulsed Juno tells her she’s “kind of off sex now.” 

We see her deal with the judgmental stares of adults and peers at school and with an off-handed insult by a health care worker as she gets her first ultrasound. This film definitely does not make light of the fact that she is sixteen and pregnant, even if it does have its funny moments. Though the funny ads for the movie suggest otherwise, there are as many tears as laughs. Her pain is particularly evident after she gives birth and knows she won’t see the baby again. She weeps uncontrollably as the baby’s father holds her in the hospital.

I was surprised at first that her sort-of love interest, Paulie Bleeker (the father of the baby) isn’t a bigger part of the film. Played by Michael Cera of Superbad and Arrested Development, I thought for sure his great comic timing would be more central to the movie. 

But this is part of the beauty of the film—he’s not pregnant, and his life apparently isn’t affected too much. Juno’s father is obviously angry when he finds out who got his daughter pregnant, but he’s also a little impressed. “I didn’t think he had it in him,” he says of the pale, skinny boy.

When she tells first Paulie, he does ask her “what do we do?” and seems to be supportive (and totally freaked out). But she convinces her parents not to tell his, and as her belly grows she reminds him that she is the one who has to deal with the stares and insults, not him. Juno doesn’t even tell him when she goes into labor because he has a track meet that day. 

In fact, the only time a classmate mentions to Paulie that he heard he is the father of the baby, he seems impressed. The equally scrawny classmate comments that he will stop wearing underwear to improve his sperm count.

The truth is, when teenage girls get pregnant, they are the ones who bear not just the child, but the scorn of those around them and the broader society. Girls are the ones who get called “sluts” or “whores.” The boy fathers might instead be called "players” or “studs." Promiscuity is largely seen as a female stain; but remember that while females have more to lose by getting pregnant, they can’t get themselves pregnant.

In contrast to this movie, most babies born to teen girls are fathered by adult men, so “teen pregnancy” often involves an adult too. Teen girls are highly sexualized by the society (and adults) around them. The modeling industry, for example, relies on barely pubescent girls told to pout for adult (mostly male) photographers and sexy becomes defined as looking as young as possible.

But as Juno reminds us, teens are more than just naïve victims of the culture and society around them. As Janis Prince Inniss blogged about a few months ago, teen pregnancy rates are significantly lower than they were in past decades (despite a small increase in the last year data were available). Abortion rates have declined to their lowest level since 1974, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that teens are less likely to be sexually active compared with the 1990s (about 54% of high school students had sex in 1991 compared with 48% in 2005). When they are they are much more likely to use condoms (up from 46% in 1991 to 63% in 2005).

Even so, we have a much higher teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. compared with other industrialized nations (a topic for another blog), and getting pregnant at sixteen isn’t a great idea. Juno shows us why without being too preachy or requiring the girl to constantly suffer for her mistake. 

First Name Basis: Gender and Familiarity

By Karen Sternheimer

If you are a person of a certain age, you might remember a time when first names were reserved for those closest to us. 

When I was growing up, all adults were to be addressed as Mr., Miss, Mrs. (this was before Ms. became common), or Dr. We did call some of my parents’ closest friends by their first names, but for the most part every adult had a title. Even my friends’ mothers would sometimes call my mom “Mrs. Sternheimer” if they didn’t know her well.

This has changed quite a bit in recent years, as formality has given way to more egalitarian communication (particularly here in laid-back southern California). In-laws are seldom “mom” or “dad” but addressed by their first names. Some kids are encouraged to call their teachers by their first names. Most of my friends’ kids call me Karen (although one acquaintance insists that her daughter call me Ms. Karen), and many of my students do too.

I am on the fence about this; on the one hand it challenges the hierarchies of status and age; I want people to feel comfortable communicating with me. It is possible to maintain respect for someone in a position of authority when everyone is on a first-name basis. At several companies I have worked for it really helped foster communication when the president and vice presidents insisted on being called by their first names.

But there is a definite gender factor at work here. Women sometimes have to try harder to establish their authority, especially if they are young and/or small in stature. There is a fine line between familiarity and disrespect; it’s not always clear when it is crossed.

I have noticed this especially on political talk shows recently. Hillary Clinton is nearly always referred to as “Hillary”, while her male counterparts are mostly identified by their last names. I watch a lot of Sunday morning talk shows, and this seems to be a reliable pattern each week—regardless of whether the pundits are male or female. They speak of a war of words between “Hillary and Obama,” not “Hillary and Barack.” While they may mention the other candidates’ first names, it is nearly always followed by their last name.

So this is not just about men devaluing women, nor is it the work of the political talking heads alone. After all, her campaign placards and bumper stickers say “Hillary” in big letters.

There is of course another unusual factor at work here: distinguishing herself from her husband and his presidency in her campaign. She could have called herself “Rodham Clinton,” but curiously dropped her original last name. Perhaps this is an attempt to appeal to more traditional voters (ironically in a very non-traditional situation).

Her campaign might have chosen the “Hillary” logo to try and overcome the aloofness that critics chide her for. Calling her by her first name is an invitation to familiarity.

But this still strikes me as deeply intertwined with gender. Think back to other presidential candidates. Did we see big, bold “George” “John” “Bill” or “Al” bumper stickers? Maybe it’s that male names are so common in national politics that we need their last names for clarification. After all, there are lots of Johns running for office (interesting double entendre, no?) but any woman’s name really stands out.

No matter how much we might like to think otherwise, gender is central to the way people view presidential elections in particular and authority more generally. Part of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s challenge is to somehow seem to adhere to our gendered expectations while defying them at the same time.

First names can be a slippery slope—I notice that occasionally students’ papers will cite female authors by their first names only, but will not do the same for males. Or, even worse, some students will cite female authors’ ideas and last names but refer to them as “he.”

Gender constantly weaves its way into our relationships, even (or especially) when we are not thinking about it. So let’s think about it…what does using first names mean to you?

Doggie's BFF

By Sally Raskoff

Do you think that dogs are a human’s best friend? Are they really our best friend forever? Many feel that their pets are a member of the family, but how important are they compared  to your other family members?

Today, I saw a family walking into the local mall and something about them caught my eye. The family consisted of four adults and one child. The child was pushing a stroller and she appeared to be about 8-10 years old. They caught my attention since the young girl (and not one of the four adults) was pushing the stroller.

She leaned down to tend to something in the stroller, and I realized that she was pushing a dog stroller! Her small puppy (or full size toy dog) was attempting to climb out of the carrier so she tucked it back in. As they approached the door of the mall, she had to push the dog back in the stroller two or three more times. 

My first thought was that this was a great example of the reinforcement of gender norms, as the girl was practicing mothering skills--not just with a doll but with a living creature. However, I realized that this was much more than a gender socialization process when I noticed that the stroller was designed specifically for dogs.

Recently, we have seen small dogs traveling in women’s purses or in bags that appear to be purses yet are small dog carriers. The first time we notice these purse-dogs, it is somewhat surprising, but the more we see this, the more “normal” it becomes. 

The stroller-dogs are similar to the purse-dogs in that they are being carried about, not walking under their own power. They are not walking, sniffing, and socializing as typical dogs do.

I’ve always thought it odd seeing a purse-dog. I wonder how it “does its business” or relieves itself. But dogs in strollers? This seems to be a very different situation. It seemed so odd to me since dogs need walking not riding!

Why is it more startling to see a stroller-dogs than a purse-dog? 

• While the dog is being carried about much like the purse-dogs, the stroller is more visible and it is obvious that people are pushing around a dog. 
• When we see a stroller, we assume that it is carrying a human child or a doll; it is apparent that its occupant is equated with either a human or a doll. 
• Dolls are proxy humans; girls are encouraged to play with them to prepare for their future role as a mother.

Thus these stroller dogs are treated not only as family members, but also as babies or children and equivalent to humans.

When I mentioned this to my friends, one mentioned that she had seen a woman shopping in the mall with her golden retriever. Adult retrievers are far too big to be carried in purses and are probably too big for most strollers, but they can participate in the take-my-dog-anywhere phenomenon too. If small dogs can go to the mall, why not larger dogs? 

Cities have the power of regulation over where animals may go. Guide dogs are allowed into public places and elsewhere to assist their humans navigate spaces and situations. But most cities have regulations requiring owners of other dogs to ensure that (1) their dogs are licensed, (2) their dogs be leashed when off one’s private property, and (3) when walking their dogs in public spaces, they remove any feces. Many businesses have policies that prohibit the presence of all dogs except guide dogs. Health codes restrict most businesses that serve food from allowing animals into their establishment. 

Because so many dog owners have opted to bring their “best friend” with them everywhere they go, there is a robust market for books and websites that offer suggestions about pet-friendly businesses, hotels, and cities. 

One website lists malls across the country that are pet friendly. Some shopping center websites have a “pet friendly” icon on their page. The Prime Outlets at Pismo Beach, California, is so pet friendly they have doggie treats for their four-legged visitors.

So, how do we explain this relatively recent phenomenon of dogs becoming not just our best friend, but our constant companion (when they are allowed to be)?

Norms, or societal guidelines for expected behavior are often reflected in organizational policies and governmental laws. Norms, like policies and laws, do change over time yet they do not often change quickly. What is source of such change? Typically, when behaviors of people deviate from those norms in enough over time, those behaviors become more accepted than the policies , laws, or norms that had restricted that behavior.

Animals have always been important to our culture. However, in recent years the depth of integration of animals with our families and daily life has increased tremendously. Animals have always been valued for their labor (farm animals), amusement or education (circuses, zoos), and companionship or helping humans learn caring behaviors or parenting roles (domestic pets). These days, though, many pets are considered equal members of the family.

Why are we treating dogs as if they are children?

Symbolic interactionist theory and ethnographic research suggest that domesticated pets offer humans tremendously rewarding social and emotional contacts. Studies show that the elderly and those with disabilities are happier and healthier if they have regular interactions with a pet. Dogs also connect people to other people (much as children do) because they get their owners out into the social world. 

Canine companionship can also serve as a substitute for human contact. As societal and technological changes make us more isolated from each other, it seems logical that we increasingly incorporate pets, especially dogs, into our families and social lives.

Of course, it can cost money to bring your dog everywhere you go. Dog strollers sell for approximately $50 to over $200. Dog carriers or “purses” also are not inexpensive either. While middle and upper class families can afford such luxury canine carrying items, those with lower earnings probably can’t. 

Homeless people with dog companions are often denied shelter unless they give up their dogs—thus most refuse such shelter. Since these dogs are often the only positive emotional connection for their human companions, they will not give them up to get a roof over their head. Their ties to their dogs are equal to or even more powerful than that of other people. Yet homeless people and their dogs are welcomed inside shopping centers they way a well-off dog-purse-carrying owner might be.

Speaking of economics, the recent growing acceptance of dogs as family members has been a boon to the economy. The market for products created for dogs and other pets has steadily increased for many years. The American Pet Products Manufacturers Association estimates that in 2007 $40.8 billion dollars were spent on pet products in the U.S. Their trend report cites not only and increasing focus on dog products but companies known for human products are including dog prod