Gender and the Media. Weitzer and Kubrin (2009) Misogyny in Rap Music

Gender and Violence

Sexual Harassment and Masculinity: The Power and Meaning of “Girl Watching”

Beth A. Quinn

Thesis: “how the subject of perpetrators, victims, and resistors of sexual harassment are irregularly produced, reproduced, and altered within the workplace.”

The author focuses on a particular type of sexual harassment – girl watching, which can be defined as the act of men’s sexually evaluating women, often in the company of other men. It might take form of verbal or gestural messages such as “check it out”, explicit comments about a woman’s body or imaged sex acts. The target can be a woman or group of woman. There are two reasons why the author focused mainly on workplace. 1^st it appears to be fairly widespread at workplace. 2^nd reason is that girl watching is frequently accepted as natural and commonplace activity or in other words girl watching is often normalized and trivialized as only a play, or the believe that boys will be boys.

Previous research has identified that, in general, women are more likely to identify particular situation as coercive and as sexual harassment compared to men. In addition, 81 per cent of surveyed women and 68 per cent of surveyed men identified girl watching as sexual harassment, though men were more likely to dismiss such a behavior. To explain these differences gender role socialization theory was employed.  The theory suggests that the more men and women adhere to traditional gender roles, the more likely they will deny the harm in sexual harassment and/or accept it as normal. Nevertheless, the theory could not adequately address the between-group differences. The process by which gender roles operate to produce these differences remain under examined. Some theorists argue that men are more likely to discount the harassing aspects of their behavior because of culturally conditioned tendency to misperceive women’s intention. Men see harmless flirtation or sexual interest rather than harassment because they misperceive women’s intent and responses.

Method: The author conducted 43 semi structured interviews currently employed men and women between June 1994 and March 1995 (25 from “Acme Electronics” and 18 from an evening class at a community college and a university summer school class). In addition to interviews, she conducted participant observation for approximately one month while on site at Acme. This involved observations of public and common spaces of the company. The interviews began with general questions about friendships and work relations and progressed to specific questions about gender relations, sexual harassment, and the policies that seek to address it. Participants were asked to consider what it would be like to conduct their everyday work life in gendered state. Imagining themselves as the opposite sex, participants were forced to make explicit the operation of gender in their workplace, something they did not do in their initial discussions of a typical workday. Interestingly, no man discussed girl watching in initial accounts of his workplace until they were asked to think of themselves as gendered worker.

Findings: First, girl watching appears to function as a form of gendered play among men. In particular, girl watching works as a dramatic performance played to other men, a means by which a certain type of masculinity is produced and heterosexual desire displayed. It is a means by which men assert a masculine identity to other men, in an ironic “hommo-sexual” practice of hetesoxuality. The best example of that is watching passing women. The passing woman is simply a visual cue for the men’s play. It seems clear that it is a game played by men for men; the woman’s participation and awareness of her role seem fairly unimportant. Play functions as both a source of fun and a mechanism by which gendered identities, group boundaries, and power relations are(re)produced. Girl watching works similarly to the sexual joking (a common way for heterosexual men to establish intimacy among themselves). If too much, then seen as mere schoolboys giggling in the playground/ or because they don’t get enough women in their lives.

Second, men understand the targeted women to be an object rather than a player in the game, and she is most often not in the intended audience. The gaze demonstrates their right, as men, to sexually evaluate women. Through the gaze, the targeted woman is reduced to a sexual object, contradicting her other identities, such as that of competent worker or leader. This employs of the discourse of asymmetrical heretosexuality. The power of sexuality is asymmetrical, in part, because being seen as sexual has different consequences for women and men. Understanding of men’s and d women’s different. These differences in understanding lead to a sexual harassment. Men didn’t even think that woman might not like it. Never were mentioned woman’s reactions. When he considered the act from the point of view of a man, girl watching was simply a harmless antic and act of appreciation. When he was forced to consider the subject position of a woman, however, girl watching was something to be avoided or at least carefully managed. The gender reversal scenario – produced empathy. Empathy requires: first, one must be have some knowledge of other’s situation and feelings. Second, one must be motivated to take the position of the other. Failure – lack of motivation. Men who effectively perform masculinity – often disregard woman’s pain.

Anti-sexual harassment training programs – the men successfully used the training session videos as an opportunity for girl watching through their public sexual evaluations of the women depicted.

In the reading “Wars, Wimps, and Women: Talking Gender and thinking War” the author provided an analyzes of the American National security policies in relation to military, politics, people’s values, and even thoughts about genders by using participant observation research method. However, it is extremely important to note the fact that the main goal of this paper was not to compare genders, but rather to “explore gender discourse and its role in shaping nuclear and national security discourse.” Therefore, the term gender here can be understood in another way. Specifically, “gender” can be viewed not only as biological sex differences, but as a “symbolic system, a central organizing discourse of culture, one that not only shapes how we experience and understand ourselves as men and women, but that also interweaves with other discourses and shapes them-and therefore shapes other aspects of our world.”   In order to emphasize the fact that symbolic meaning affects all actors of society, particularly both females and males, no matter if they fit their real gender ideals, the author used 2 different steps. To be more precise, first steps is analyzing the relevance of gender diversity and making an association with cultural representation. Another step is to try to make it clear the possibility of flowing meanings in different directions. For example, the fact that George Bush gets teary-eyed in public,  and something entirely different when Patricia Shroeder does can be viewed as possible evidence of the existence of different perceptions about characteristics of genders and special actions that society assign to one particular gender. As a case n point, it is generally assumed that women are associated with the whole constellation of traits- irrational, emotional, subjective, etc. While males’ actions are often viewed as rational, calculative mode of thought. Such organizing of the world into gender-associated opposites called gender discourse phenomenon. Hence, it can be said that such gender discourse can lead to misunderstanding of the truly actions of an individual. Moreover, it prevents the ability to analyze the significance and reason of decision making. The author provided an example of white male physicist, whose actions were considered by his colleges as inappropriate for males, when he blurted, and hence, expressed his feelings emotionally. In conclusion it can be said that the author achieved his goal to show that national security discourse is gendered. As a consequence, it shapes of other nations’ actions also was discussed. In addition, there is another trend can be viewed. For instance, the feelings and emotions of women were considered as simply “emotions”, while the same feelings of men were conversely vied as rational analyzing of the problem. Therefore, different treatment of the same issues can be considered as violence against particular group of people, in this case women.

Gendering violence

Masculinity and Power in Men’s Accounts in Domestic Violence

This article examines the construction of gender within men’s accounts of domestic violence. According to theoretical work, which is used in this article, gender is characterized as performance. These performances of gender are perceived as “routine, methodical, and ongoing accomplishments” that sustain the notion of natural differences between women and men. In addition, the performance of gender makes male power and privilege appear natural and normal rather than socially produced and structured. The article focuses on identifying ways in which the practice of domestic violence helps men to accomplish gender.

In the US men commit majority of violence against women and against other men. However some scholars argue that women perpetrate domestic violence at rates similar to men. Moreover recent evidence from a large national survey suggests that women experience higher rates of victimization at the hands of partners than men and African American and Latina women experience higher rate of victimization than European American women (Bachman and Saltzman 1995). Eleven respondents described attacking a partner who did not physically resist, and only two respondents reported that they were victimized by their partner but did not themselves perpetrate violence. In twenty cases participants reported “mutual” violence.

Domestic violence is gendered that advantage men, through social and cultural norms suggesting:

1. women should pair with men who are larger and stronger than themselves (Goffman 1977). Young men often learn to view themselves as capable perpetrators of violence through rough play and contact sports.
2. culture defines violence as unfeminine, few women learn to use violence effectively.

Gendered depictions and interpretations

Male participants depicted their violence as rational, effective, and explosive, whereas women’s violence was represented as hysterical, trivial and ineffectual. Male respondents minimized their partners’  violence by explaining that it was of little concern to them. Even in the case of extreme danger, such as when threatened with a weapon, respondents denied the possibility that their partners’ violence was a threat. Such depictions helped respondents to justify their own violence and to present themselves as calm, cool, rational men. Other respondents depicted their partner’s in factual terms but emphasized that they perceived their own violence as the greater danger. Only two respondents consistently identified as victims. By denying the threat from women’s violence, participants performed masculinity and reinforced notions of gender difference.

Gendering blame

Contemporary constructions of gender hold women responsible for men’s aggression

Detailing faults in the female partner’s behavior: parenting style, interaction style, choices, most common: controlling (vague)(felt emasculated)

Sexual violence is often blamed on women, who are perceived as tempting men who are powerless in the face of their primal sexual desires.

Moreover, male’s violence was rewarded by their partners’  feeling of guilt, suggesting that violence is simultaneously a performance of masculinity and a means by which respondents encouraged the performance of femininity by female partners.

“The Law is for Women’: Claiming gender bias

Participants sometimes rationalized their violence by claiming that the legal system overreacted to a minor incident. 8 out of 33 interviewees depicted themselves as victims of gender politics. Gendering violence by claiming:  “Male are victimized by a criminal justice system that constructs all men as villains and all women as victims”

When the police arrived some respondents were in double mind. They wanted to deny their own violence to avoid arrest, but they also wanted to deny victimization at the hands of a woman. The construction of masculine subjectivities is tied to position of dominance and that women have threatened the binary and hierarchical gender framework through their resistance to male violence.

Discussion: Social Locations and discourses of violence

Respondents’ descriptions of conflicts with female partner were similar across racial, ethnic and class locations. Respondents of higher socioeconomic status emphasized their careers and material items that they provided for their families throughout the interview. Conversely, economically disenfranchised men volunteered stories about their prowess in fights with other men. The use of violence to achieve respect is a central theme in research on the construction of masculinities among disenfranchised men

Many scholars have suggested that domestic violence is a means by which men construct masculinities. In addition this study suggests that violence is an effective means by which batterers reconstruct men as masculine and women as feminine. By gendering violence, these batterers not only performed masculinity but reproduced gender as dominance.

Predatory Sex and Party Rapes

Michael Kimmel

• Raises the issue of the so called campus rape or in other words any kind of sexual assault by college or university students.
• One of the most crucial factors in incidents such as date rape and gang rape is considered to be alcohol.
• It is found to be highly controversial whether having sex drunk women must be identified as rape or not
• It can be argued that because of the fact that there was no formal consent from the side of a woman it must be recognized as a form of sexual assault
• In their interviews, no male student admitted their actions as illegal, because women did not refused having sex either.
• The issue creates highly polarized perspectives, some of them being radically feminist, whereas some of them are accused of being misogynistic.
• Some anti-feminist groups claim that it is completely the fault of a woman because it is she who must take responsibility of herself and her behavior, no one forced her to drink alcohol or even attend such parties, and they should realize that once they go to such arrangements they enter the zone with high risk of being subjected to sexual violation.
• The fact remains that the number of women who have been exposed to any kind of sexual assault are much higher among college students than among general public.
• It is very problematic to draw the precise statistics because the vast majority of the victims do not report it, considering it as something shameful and humiliating.
• Only 5 percent of the victims of the completed or attempted rape reported it to the police.
• Another reason is that in most cases the perpetrators of the assault are the people who the woman knows already, they may be the college mates, friends or even the person they are dating with.

Following, Kimmel tries to explain why men go to such acts.

• In the results of the study held by a psychologist Neil Malamuth, almost 20 percent of male students responded that they would accomplish rape if it did not have any implications with the judiciary.
• One of the most widespread beliefs among men is that women in fact do want to have sex, but they do not say it overtly
• Another distorted idea is that predatory sex is a prerogative of men because they are programmed for domination over women by the process of the evolution; hence, it is an integer part of their masculinity.
• The pressure of friends is another factor in committing sexual abuse
• A further interesting point made by men who view sexual assault as the compensation for the dominance of women when it comes to sex
• The next problem related to the party rape issue is that in most cases it does not just happen in isolated place, and thus involves not only the offender and the victim, but also friends of men who were witnessing the crime.
• The culture of silence among peers is mostly influenced by the notion of the brotherhood among men.
• Culture of silence reinforces outrageous behavior of the perpetrators and prevents men who did not commit the actual crime from intervening or condemning his friend’s actions.
• There were numerous cases when the football recruits were engaged in sexual crimes such as gang rapes against female students.
• More and more universities have begun the anti-rape companies and specially designed programs, which are aimed at creating awareness of what campus rape is and what the consequences are.
• Antioch University in Ohio adopted a Conduct Code according to which any actions of sexual character without giving verbal consent will be recognized as rape.
• Kimmel argues that such laws put great emphasis on women, putting the responsibility of taking preventive measures on them rather than on men.

Gender and Social Change

Wharton. Deconstructing Gender differences and inequalities

1. What is gender – multilevel system of social practices that produces distinctions b/n men & women, organises inequality on the basis of these distinctions.
2. Review of gender operating levels: individual, interactional, institutional
3. Gender distinctions – gender inequality relational link.
4. Tendencies: gender inequalities are less pronounced now than distinctions. Egalitarian view’s promotion reduces gender differentiation in some areas but increases in others.
5. Reason for resistance to changes in gender system: gender distinctions operating in the multilevel system are produced and reproduced through these levels.

Gender reproduction – main focus of the article, because it is the obstacle to fast gender order change

6. Ways of reproduction:  1institutionalisation – processes through which social relationships take on the qualities of an institution ( social structures&practices). Example, marriage and its dynamics: certain patterns, which are reproduced by society and do not need explanation.

Institutionalisation of social inequalities:  example, slavery. Further, gender inequalities.

Institutionalised inequalities affect dominants and subordinates (they perceive them as it should be like this), are invisible and depersonalised. 2Legitimation – the processes through which inequalities are justified – i.e. are understood as fair & reasonable. Example, American dream justifies the asymmetric wealth distribution in the USA, as everyone keeps for himself an opportunity to become reach. Amer. Dream is also Ideology – a dominant, widely shared worldview that reflects people’s understanding of the world around. Ideology’s role in reproduction: if they are true and fully embraced then they allow inequalities to persist.

7. Gender essentialism – ideology, is a belief that w and m are fundamentally or inherently different. Weakening ideology. Gender essentialism is used now in a way that it supports western cultural belief of self-expression and individualism, thus, gender inequalities are result of m/w choices and their views on world and self.
8. How this ideology is sustained : through the dominant’s representations of embedded inequalities as something harmless. Subordinates are persuaded.
9. Strategies of persuasion: Paternalism / deference twin ideologies. Paternalism – originally, father’s care and control over a child, while now men’s care and ctrl over women. Such representation of inequalities makes them seem benign: as father does everything good for a child, so the men do. This evokes positive accepting by subordinates such arrangement.

Deference – subordinates accept this policy and do not challenge the dominant’s rule.

10. M and W do not see each other as adversaries. They use other explanations for inequalities: household labour division and job typing is accepted as benign by two-thirds of surveyed.
11. But M and W see difference in their personalities traits. Gender stereotypes: w are emotional etc.
12. Beliefs + paternalism/deference = positive view of each other but insistence on unique traits and roles, which support gender order.
13. Whites vs. Blacks disagreements are contrasted to m / w agreement on the neutral character of gender differences.
14. Proximity and frequency of contacts b/n genders (they are linked through family) makes the agreement possible and thus contribute the reproduction.
15. Example: all have relatives of other genders, while social class differentiation within family is rare.
16. Gender & race:  afro-americans tend to support social policies for equality as they already experienced one type of inequality ( racial) , they more easily  promote social changes and view the differences as social factors in contrast to whites. Thus, they are less exposed to paternalism/deference ideology.
17. Once institutionalised inequality is built into the gender system and sustained by everyday routine. Consequence of instit-n is gender inequality is depersonalised.
18. Ideologies  emphasize that differences are here but downplay the embedded inqualities. Thus, all together halts the reduction of gender inequality.
19. Challenging Gender inequalities: to reduce we need deconstruction of gender through the analysis of institi-n and legitimation, thus, its reproduction process.  But, focusing too much on reproduction will lead to the pessimism and no way for changes.
20. Changes in gender are slow, as order is stable and reproduced ( as described above)
21. Two insights on reduction of gender inequality : 1) even highly institutionalised social relati-ps can  change, if fact the will change as it is continuous process of social change. But, very slowly and Warning: the direction of changes is not guaranteed to be good. Incrementality  and unplanned manner of changes and 2)UNEVENNESS of social change:  not all parts of world change together. Changes may occur on one level but affect other levels also.
22. Two genders view is created at all levels thus, multilevel system is hard to be changed radically.
23. Different levels are impacted by changes differently. Uneven. Change in one level (ex. Individual) leads to openings for change in other ( interact. Ex)
24. General tendency towards equality. Changes occurred in family and labour division, educa-n.
25. Examples of level’s mutual influence: individual on interaction on instititutions  - lesbian parents – at school are recognised as parents etc.
26. Uneven social change – diff. Impact on m and w.  Women gaining benefits – half-finished revolution towards egalitarianism
27. Gender matters less --- then can predict what the result , where all spheres will lean on gender less. Degendered institutions, interactions and individuals – practices free from gender typing, identification and relations of people regardless gender,traits and identities without gender mark. Sex categories – just biological difference.
28. Gender distinctions lead to inequalities, thus distinctions should be erased to change society and vice versa.