“Polished” by James Lee – originally posted to Flickr as Polished. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polished.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Polished.jpg

It is the same old tale, just spun with a different color thread: “Women: don’t get raped.”

Recently, four students (note that they are all male) invented Undercover Colors, a nail polish for women that changes color (like a mood ring) when it touches rape drugs commonly slipped into drinks. Now,  I do applaud the men for recognizing the all-too-common issue of rape and taking the initiative to do something about it. Only, what they did still places the blame on women.

First, for those who are unfamiliar, here is how the nail polish works: the female who is preparing to go out for the evening coats their nails with Undercover Colors. Then, when she is offered a drink, or returns to her drink that she has placed down, she discretely stirs her drink with her finger. If the nail polish changes color, then it has been drugged and she should (1) not drink the drink and (2) probably leave. According to the creators’ website:

“Through this nail polish and similar technologies, we hope to make potential perpetrators afraid to spike a woman’s drink because there’s now a risk that they can get caught. In effect, we want to shift the fear from the victims to the perpetrators. We are Undercover Colors and we are the first fashion company empowering women to prevent sexual assault.”

Let’s unpack that a bit. Yes, this invention has progressed old rape “prevention” advice quite a bit, recognizing that women (single or not) should be able to go out, drink, and enjoy themselves. This also recognizes that women are in control of their sexuality and can say no. Additionally, it tries to shift rape narratives from women to men, saying that men should think about their actions prior to slipping drugs into a woman’s drink.

But what does this also say? It also says that women should be feminine and wear nail polish. Fact! Not all women wear nail polish. I think specifically about non-feminine women, religious women, or women in occupations that strictly prohibits nail polish. This continues dichotomous gender role assumptions that only feminine women can be raped. Women who act like men, who are aggressive, who wear pants, or who date other women (or trans or gender non-conforming people) cannot be raped. Men, trans, and gender non-conforming individuals also are raped, though not at the same and alarming rates as women. Finally, while supposedly shifting responsibility towards men, the creators do not do anything about stopping rape, in fact it presumes that men will always rape. By making a product (that remains the responsibility of the target) that men must constantly fear about a person wearing, the perpetrator in this case is still planning on raping.

This goes along the lines of other preventive date-rape advice that I have received and heard over and over again: park near a street light and remember where you park, walk with your keys in your hand, take self-defense, “protect yourself” and be aware of your surroundings, don’t go anywhere alone ever (like that is feasible), avoid drinking, date people whose background is similar to yours (seriously, that is one!), carry Mad Money and mace. That isn’t to say that these are all bad pieces of advice, but they are all constructed so that the female does not get raped. Not so that the male doesn’t rape.

In a wonderful editorial about this issue, feminist blogger Jessica Valenti reminds us of other failed attempts to “help” women like the chastity belt, anti-rape underwear, and Rapex (a female condom that would hook the penis). All of these place the responsibility to protect themselves on women, just another thing to deal with on a daily basis. As Valenti states, “The problem is that simply being female in public remains an undue risk.” If these preventive steps aren’t taken, then it becomes the woman’s fault. Not the rapist’s. In an attempt to give women empowerment, we actually still are subordinating women to a patriarchal world where men are entitled access to women whenever, wherever, and however they’d like.

So, what should we do? How about teach our kids not to rape? Teach our boys (but really all individuals, because anyone can rape) that consent is mandatory. That sex can be pleasurable when all parties agree. How about taking the responsibility and blame and turning in on its head, and blaming the actual perpetrator? Because I sure don’t want to have to spend my money so I’m not raped.

Pieces to read:

If We Gave Men the Same Advice We Gave Women

Katz, Jennifer, Rachel Olin, Catherine Herman, and Melinda DuBois. 2013. “Spotting the Signs: First-Year College Students’ Responses to Bystandar-Themed Rape Prevention Posters.” Journal of Community Psychology 41(4):523-529.

Murphy, Michael J. 2009. “Can ‘Men’ Stop Rape?: Visualizing Gender in the ‘My Strength is Not For Hurting’ Rape Prevention Campaign.” Men and Masculinities 12(1):113-130.

Stephens, Kari A. 2009. “Rape Prevention with College Men: Evaluating Risk Status.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence 24(6):996-1013.

**Please note that this post has illustrations of sexual acts.**

Recently, and for the first time ever, Cosmopolitan Magazine published a list of sex tips and positions for “lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals, queers- all lady-loving ladies in the crowd.” At first, as a member of the LGBTQQIAA community, I was shocked and excited at the seemingly legitimate public recognition of my sexual practices by the “sex gurus” themselves over at Cosmo. At a closer glance however, this list is a comical illustration that is not titillating to say the least, but ultimately is quite exclusionary in the understanding of lesbian sex. Needless to say, the lesbian sex Cosmo describes is not my sex, let alone a realistic portrait of most “lady-loving” relationships.

Let me give you some examples. There are some pretty good critiques online about the feasibility of these positions, but there is more to it than just that. Take a look:

Source: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/positions/g4090/mind-blowing-lesbian-sex-positions/?thumbnails

This first move, entitled Defying Gravity, with a difficulty rating of five “hearts” out of five requires the receiving partner to face away from her partner, kneel, straddle and bend over so her hips are in the air and her hand touch the ground for support. Even after nine years of competitive gymnastics in my childhood, this move would require great strength and flexibility to maneuver and support oneself. I immediately think about dis/ability discourses when looking at images like this and how they potentially exclude and erase women who are not physically capable to perform such an acrobatic act. Did and would the writers even consider varying the images to include a wider representation of individuals and possibilities?

Source: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/positions/g4090/mind-blowing-lesbian-sex-positions/?thumbnails

In this second image, which Cosmo so cleverly entitled “The Classic Scissor,” two women are illustrated straddling one another so that their clitorises may rub together. This move is not new. There is a longstanding history of lesbian sex. Cosmo even acknowledges that it is a “classic.” Yet, because of the magazine’s “authority” on all topics related to sex, they receive credit for naming this “classic” sex move. This renaming and rebranding of lesbian culture delegitimizes every stride for recognition and legitimacy that the lesbian movement has made. Only when Cosmo says that this sexual move is pleasurable—is legitimate—can women have sexual relationships with one another. But we know that this is not the case, and so do they.

Source: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/sex-love/positions/g4090/mind-blowing-lesbian-sex-positions/?thumbnails

And of course, my favorite of the sex moves (to critique) is number eighteen: the “Strap-on Sizzle.” Look closely. The woman on the top wearing the strap-on is hyper-masculinized by wearing a tie, while the submissive bottom receiving the strap-on penetration is hyper-feminized by being tied up and illustrated wearing lipstick, thigh high pantyhose and strappy red heels. In this image, Cosmo takes the strap-on and equates it as close to heterosexual sex with gender role-play as possible. Women, in this case, cannot legitimately be penetrated by anything other than a man.

What else, I ask you, is depicted or not depicted in these images? What messages are being conveyed through this listing? How are lesbian relationships (and supposedly other non-heterosexual relationships) being constructed?

First, besides the hyper-masculinization of the women wearing strap-ons, the lesbians are extremely feminine with long flowing hair, sexy lingerie, heels, makeup, and jewelry. It’s as if there can only be one type of lesbian- the “femme” or “lipstick lesbian” (which is arguably two types, but still both feminine). What about short-haired lesbians? Dykes? Butches? Women who aren’t a size two?

Secondly, the two women in the images arguably both pass for white with one fair-skinned blonde and another a more olive-toned brunette. At first I thought about the possibility of an inter-racial couple, which is still a possibility, but the fact of the matter is that both partners pass for white. If this list is supposed to be for all “lady-loving ladies,” what is it doing to say who qualifies to be a true woman? What qualifies for a legitimate lesbian relationship? On that note, what about other types of relationships, as the post is supposedly intended for pansexuals, queers, and any “lady lover”?

What irks me the most (I don’t know why this irks me so much) is the fact that in every image the women’s nipples and vulvas are covered, as if these imaginary women need their sanctity to be protected because they are women! Either way, with or without the illustration of these “private” parts, these images are about sex and depict sexual acts. They are still pornographic, why must we preserve womanhood? These images clearly define lesbian relationships to be monogamous sexual acts between two femme women in the traditional gendered sense, with no penetration involved (unless role play to mimic heterosexual gender roles is involved) because a sexual relationship between two women is not equated with a heterosexual relationship.

This brings me to my question and conclusion. Who is this list really for? I do acknowledge that there is some recognition of some lesbian relationships, as there are some couples who participate in these acts and look like these women. It is nice for the “sex gurus” to publish something relatively positive about non-heterosexual relationships, as not all LGBTQ identified individuals have access to other resources or have had sex. Obviously, however, this post was not meant for all lesbians or “lady loving ladies” (in which Cosmo equates the two). I believe it is safe to conclude that this “inclusion” of lesbian sex tips is merely a marketing strategy to cause a commotion and to provide “titillating” fantasy for unknowledgeable heterosexual readers, because obviously Cosmo still does not understand nor want to legitimate my relationships.

Future Reading:

Saraceno, Michael J and Rachel B Tambling. 2013. “The Sexy Issue: Visual Expressions of Heteronormativity and Gender Identities in Cosmopolitan Magazine.” The Qualitative Report 18(40):1.

McMahon, K. 1990. “The Cosmopolitan Ideology and the Management of Desire.” Journal of Sex Research 27(90):381-396.

Dow, B. 2001. “Ellen, Television, and the Politics of Gay and Lesbian Visibility.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 18(2)

By Clara S. [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

Just like we still need feminism today, we still need women’s colleges. In fact, the two are inseparable. Having attended one of the historic Seven Sisters and one of the remaining 52 women’s colleges (including coordinate colleges, 47 without) in the US, and now attending a large, southern co-ed land grant university with a large military presence and only 41.6% female enrollment, I am a strong advocate for single-sex education. I single handedly have experienced the positive pro-woman environment that these schools and classes can have, where every leadership position and every award is always given to a woman. But, I also know that personal anecdotes are not enough.

Historically speaking, women’s colleges were created to give women access to education that was denied to them by established patriarchal institutions. Even though women today have access to education at almost all higher educational institutions, and more women attend college than men (though both numbers are still increasing, just at different rates despite recent arguments about the “boy crises”), there remains large gaps between men and women in access to equal pay, healthcare, higher-ranking and prestigious jobs, safe workplace environments, and so many other things. Single-sex institutions, however, continue to fight these inequalities, all of which are feminist issues.

Because of historic sexism, racism, and classism, some educational institutions have responded by institutionally providing opportunities otherwise denied to marginalized populations; single-sex classrooms and institutions are one prime example (Mitchell and Stewart 2013; Tidball 1999). By “taking women seriously,” single-sex institutions allow women to engage in the educational process more directly and experience greater gains than their counterparts at coeducational institutions (Kinzie et al. 2007:160, Tidball et al. 1999:97-16).

While more students attend coeducational institutions, equal access to higher education does not guarantee equal opportunities. In coeducation, men and women must compete for the same opportunities and roles, creating a “chilly campus climate” where students work against each other, and systematic inequalities favoring men prevail (Tidball et al. 1999:58-59; see also Scott 1988).

If coeducation does not serve the needs of women, why do women choose to attend coeducational institutions? Miller-Bernal (2006:8) explains, “Given the sexism of society at large, anything male tends to be defined as superior to anything female.” Therefore historically men’s institutions have been perceived as superior to women’s institutions. By opening access to these institutions to a new market—women—coeducational and previously men’s colleges could increase enrollments and, subsequently, profits by admitting women, while offering lower tution rates than private, single-sex institutions (Miller-Bernal 2006, Tidball et al. 1999). By increasing access, but not necessarily quality, coeducation became the dominant education model. Single-sex institutions, due to financial pressures, continuously close or began admitting opposite sexed students (from 200 in the 1970s to 47 today).

Despite this shift favoring coeducation, however, research has continuously demonstrated benefits to students at single-sex institutions during and after attendance (Kinzie et al. 2007, Miller-Bernal 2006, Mitchell and Stewart 2013, Tidball et al. 1999). Women at women’s colleges exhibit greater gains in cognitive areas (intellectual development, involvement, academic self-confidence, and academic ability), non-cognitive areas (self-esteem, confidence, leadership development), and overall satisfaction. The numbers are even more shocking out of college: while only 2% of women attend single-sex institutions, 33% of women board members of Fortune 1000 companies, 30% of Business Week’s list of rising stars in corporate America, and 20% of female Congress members attended women’s colleges. Nearly half of women’s college graduates hold traditionally male-dominated jobs, 81% have worked towards advanced degrees, and are twice as likely to earn a PhD. Women’s college graduates earn on average $8,000 more annually than women who attend coeducational institutions. With numbers like that, the women’s college environment must be doing something right for women.

Critics of these findings argue that the students attending single-sex institutions demographically differ from those attending coeducational institutions causing a selectivity bias. That is, students who are predisposed to succeed after college are more likely to attend private, selective, and single-sex schools. This argument is identical to the one used to exclude women from formal education in the first place; inherent differences between men and women predetermine their academic, intellectual, and occupational outcomes. Recent research responds to this by holding institutional selectivity, size, price, and student characteristics statistically constant, making the institutions identical except for the outcomes of interest including GPA, cognitive gains, job placement, income, and satisfaction. Any differences between productivity result because of how the institution approaches its student population (Tidball et al. 1999).

So, what is the point? The point is that women’s colleges still matter. The point is that we need to reconsider how coeducation works (or does not) and how we are teaching our students (or not). The point is that education, in no way, is equal or has “flipped” in favor of women. Just like we need feminism today, we need women’s colleges to continue the fight towards equality. Just Google “why women’s colleges are still relevant” and you’ll see countless statistics and facts arguing that women’s college graduates are succeeding at higher rates than their peers because women-for-women environments work. Women-for-women environments challenge the patriarchal, heterosexist, misogynistic system. To challenge the hegemonic, we need to reconsider how equal access is not equivalent to equal opportunity and outcome- a classic lesson we’ve learned over the past couple decades.

Pieces to Read:

Kinzie, Jillian, Auden D. Thomas, Megan M. Palmer, Paul D. Umbach and George D. Kuh. 2007. “Women Students at Coeducational and Women’s Colleges: How Do Their Experiences Compare?”. Journal of College Student Development 48(2):145-65.

Miller-Bernal, Leslie. 2006. “Introduction: Changes in the Status and Functions of Women’s Colleges over Time ” Pp. 1-20 in Challenged by Coeducation: Women’s Colleges since the 1960s, edited by L. Miller-Bernal and S. L. Poulson. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

Mitchell, Anthondy B. and James B. Stewart. 2013. “The Efficacy of All-Male Academies: Insights from Critical Race Theory (Crt).” Sex Roles 69:382-92.

Tidball, M. Elizabeth, Daryl G. Smith, Charles S. Tidball and Lisa E. Wolf-Wendel. 1999. Taking Women Seriously: Lessons and Legacies for Educating the Majority. Phoenix: The Oryx Press.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelhennessey/2013/02/06/whats-in-a-womens-college/

http://www.salem.edu/admissions/why-a-womens-college

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/carrie-wofford/2013/10/24/why-you-should-consider-a-womens-college

By Nicolás Espinosa (De mi computador) [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC-BY-SA-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

That does not mean, however, that sex segregation in education is always the answer. In fact, for some single-sex colleges, the gender-focused environment is in fact too exclusionary. Women’s colleges, by definition, are for women. But what does that mean? Who qualifies as a woman? Are we talking about gender or sex?

Recently, trans inclusion at single-sex schools has been in the media, and as a person who has lived the experience and is deep in the “debate,” I must say this is appalling that this is still a conversation that must be had. And yet countless of administrators, students, and alumnae are throwing a fit at the idea of accepting a transwoman to a single-sex school. Remind me- what year is this?

Let me catch you up with a little bit of background. In the spring of 2008, Calliope Wong, a transwoman from Connecticut applied to Smith College (you can read her story here). She had multiple conversations with the admissions office about the process and whether or not she could apply due to her gender identity and sex. The admissions office, and Smith more generally, only has the policy that if the application suggests that the applicant identifies as female, including the use of female pronouns and perhaps mention of women/womanhood/female issues and experiences in the personal statement, the application would be considered. Calliope, however, received a rejection letter due to the fact that her FASFA form (which is not a required document…)* had her sex marked “M,” citing that including a “male” on campus would risk the school’s historical single-sex status and federal funding. One little letter. Rejected. Excluded.

The same year, however, Mount Holyoke (only 15 minutes away from Smith), also a historical seven sister and part of the same collegiate consortium as Smith, accepted their first transwoman applicant as well as Simmons College. Since then, there have been multiple cases of either acceptance or rejections, news coverage, student protests, and changes of school policies about this issue.

The way I see and understand the argument against trans exclusion is extremely narrow-minded and sexist. Similar to separatist lesbian feminist and womyn’s spaces like the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival or communes, the exclusion of transwomen is due to the presence of male anatomy (and accompanying “threat” of male violence). It is due to sex.

“But Smith is a school for women,” is often the argument made. Well, if we are defining Smith’s population by sex, then perhaps. That is why Calliope was rejected from Smith. Because I have many friends at Smith and at other women’s colleges that do not identify as female, though they were born with “female anatomy.” But then, how is sex defined? How would admissions officers be sure every student applying has “female anatomy?” Are chromosomes enough? Breasts? A certain threshold of estrogen? A vagina?  How would we draw that line?

Then there is the gender side of womanhood. If we say Smith is a school for women, as according to their gender, then aren’t we reinforcing gender categories, dichotomies, and norms on people? What about students who come to realize in their new environment that they do not identify as female? What about people like Calliope, who do identify as female?

Needless to say, it is clear how Smith is defining womanhood, regardless of how their policies may state otherwise. Smith is truly a single-sex institution, not necessarily a women’s college for all women. And now, with the recent Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Decision, religious schools are using Smith and other single-sex schools as a precedent in order to exclude trans students from their schools as well. Shouldn’t we reconsider how single-sex environments are actually exclusionary and perpetuate the sex binary and move towards a more inclusive idea of womanhood and gender variation?

***Update:

Since this post was written, Mills College located in California changed its policies, as well as Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, to allow any person who self-identifies as a female to apply.

Pieces to Read:

Erikson-Schroth, Laura. 2014. Trans bodies, trans selves : a resource for the transgender community.  New York: Oxford Press.

Beemyn, Brett. 2003). “Serving the Needs of Transgender College Students” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education 1(1): 33-50.

Beemyn, Brett. (2005. “Making Campuses More Inclusive of Transgender Students.” Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education 3(1):77-87.

Perifimos, Cathy. 2008. “The Changing Faces of Women’s Colleges: Striking a Balance Between Transgender Rights and Women’s Colleges’ Right to Exclude.” Cardozo Journal of Law & Gender 15:141-168.

Kraschel, Katherine. 2012. “Trans-cending Space in Women’s Only Spaces: Title IX Cannot Be the Basis for Exclusion.” Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 35:463-485.

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s all over my newsfeed: Little girls swearing up a storm in the name of feminism. On Tuesday, October 21^st, tee-shirt company FCKH8 released the newest online video sensation, “F-Bombs for Feminism: Potty Mouthed Princesses Use Bad Word for Good Cause.” The video features five six to thirteen year old girls, dressed as princesses, dropping the f-bomb left and right, interspersed with factual information about women’s inequality including the pay gap and sexual assault.

Not surprisingly, the video has had many, many mixed results. Some feminists are excited, spreading the word about a new popular video in the name of feminism, challenging the idea “pretty” girls as princesses, and of course, little girls being tough and swearing. On the other hand, there are many people upset with the idea of children using the “f” word, though they state in the video, “What the fuck? I’m not some pretty fuckin’ helpless princess in distress. I’m pretty fuckin’ powerful and ready for success. So what is more offensive? A little girl saying ‘fuck,’ or the fucking unequal and sexist way society treats girls and women?” But at the end of the day, even as a feminist, this video just doesn’t sit right with me. “F” in this case, is the grade I would give for the video (and no, I don’t mean F for fabulous).

I have two main problems with this video. First, is their intention. Yes, FCKH8’s video is causing quite a lot of commotion and awareness, as Rebecca Haines describes an ethos steeped in “Generation Like”- a mindset of sharing and liking content on the Internet. We may be sharing because we think its cute or funny or even appalling, but as we continually share, the message of the video is spread like wildfire. So, then, what message is being spread? Yes, part of it is the foul-mouthed, strong little girls talking about feminism. Remember, though, that FCKH8 is a tee-shirt company. They sell a product in order to make profits. In fact, the last couple minutes of the video are about buying feminist clothing for an exorbitant amount of money ($15-32) and ONLY $5 will be donated to an undisclosed non-profit organization for women’s rights. So many issues. What organization is my money going to? How do we know that they are inclusive and fair? Also, then, FCKH8 is making a profit off of women’s inequality. (Oh yeah, remember when they sold anti-racism shirts in the name of Ferguson? Sound familiar?) The extra $10+ is going to the organization to make more shirts, videos, and who knows what else. Why can’t all of my money go to women’s equality? FCKH8 is steeped in capitalism. What about the shirts themselves? Are they fair-trade, anti-sweatshop? Because there is a fair amount of literature that discusses the feminization of globalized labor for cheap products…

Speaking of feminization, that brings me to my second point. The point of the pretty, pretty princess costumes is to challenge this idea that girls, well, need to be pretty and that their value is based on looks. But, this video also perpetuates many stereotypes in and of itself. Beyond the girls wearing makeup and dresses, the adult women are both feminine, which establishes that there are only certain types of women that are acceptable feminists. Additionally, the hand-gestures of the people in the video alone are hyper-exaggerated and feminized, with finger-pointing, hand on hips, etc. Then there is the actual language. If you can get past the swearing, they keep referring to “girl” and the like, making me recall “Valley Girl” type language. Why must our language lower females to the status of only “girl?” Then, once again, these lovely shirts with, of course, pink print. Just again and again this video, while trying to challenge the hegemonic patriarchy, is actually reproducing inequalities.

And that doesn’t even get me started about the inclusion of a boy. Yes, I acknowledge the presence of patriarchy, but patriarchy isn’t just men vilifying and regulating women, just as feminism isn’t just for a certain type of woman. The fact is, feminism is for everyone: boys and men, and people in between and not on the spectrum too. Where is the discussion of transwomen and men? Gender-nonconforming? Masculine women? Feminine men?

Basically, while trying to shed some light on gender inequality, FCKH8 is in fact perpetuating a binary gender system, complete with gender roles, while completely erasing the existence of any form of difference.

Pieces to Read:

D’Enbeau, Suzy and Patrice M. Buzzanell. 2001. “Selling (Out) Feminism: Sustainability of Ideology-Viability Tensions in a Competitive Marketplace.” Communications Monographs 78(1): 27-52.

Einstein, Hester. 2005. “A Dangerous Liaison Feminism and Corporate Globalization.” Science & Society 69(3):487-518.

Gibson-Graham, JK. 2006. The End of Capitalism (as We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Meehan, Eileen R. and Ellen Riordan (eds.) 2002. Sex & Money: Feminism and Political Economy in the Media. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

“1-1256217176zbgk” by Petr Kratochvil – http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=4469&picture=smal-mage-och-mata-tape. Licensed under Creative Commons Zero, Public Domain Dedication via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1-1256217176zbgk.jpg#mediaviewer/File:1-1256217176zbgk.jpg

When I really want to procrastinate doing my work, I like to visit some of my favorite websites and catch up on the latest trends and news. Recently, on one my favorite sites, I have noticed an increase in “Fitspiration Porn” right next to messages of pro-fat, pro- everybody type of images saying “Everyone is beautiful in their own way.” These also speak to the increase in celebrities with curvier bodies (e.g. Beyoncé, Iggy Azalea, Jennifer Lawrence, Nikki Minaj, and even Lena Dunham) and body-loving anthems such as Meghan Trainor’s “All About That Bass.” At first, all of this seems to be great- finally to see healthy, body loving, not-your-garden-variety, and real images and messages of real women celebrating the diversity of bodies.

Only- are they really that positive? 

At a second glance, I really have come to question this trend. While they arguably have good intentions, they still serve to shame and regulate women’s bodies. Women are no longer (well, actually, this isn’t even true) told that they need to be a size zero to be considered acceptable and healthy. Rather, now with fitspiration porn and “beauty for all messages,” our ideas of what is acceptable and a “good body” have not necessarily opened to include everyone- just a new idea of those concepts has taken over, and even to the point of shaming skinny women.

Fitspiration porn, for example, consists of “inspiring” images of women exercising, encouraging women to aspire to model similar behavior to obtain a certain skinny, yet strong, body. “Oh, well if she can do it, I can too! I want to look like her!” Often these women are still tiny in stature, but are ripped to the max, wearing minimal clothing in order to expose their successful physical transformation. On the one hand, this encourages women to be healthy and participate in physical activity. Yet, on the other, it becomes very clear that these images are made to not only sexualize women’s bodies, but also package and sell a new form of “skinny” as the ideal body that every woman should aspire to obtain. Rather than starving ourselves to be skinny, we should workout six days a week so that you “are covered in sweat rather than covered up at the beach”- still an unobtainable and unreasonable standard. That isn’t to say that a healthy, strong body can’t be achieved through hard work and exercise, but those aren’t the bodies we are told to aspire to have. The bodies pictured are the result of Photoshop, steroids, dieting, and extreme exercising. Exercise, like all things, is healthy in moderation. But pumping iron nonstop to get these bodies is just as unhealthy as an eating disorder. The truth of the matter is that fitspiration still shames women. It shames women who don’t (or can’t) exercise, who do not look a certain way. Fitspiration is just a modified unachievable standard.

Similarly, the pro-fat, pro-body diversity, “everyone is beautiful” type of campaign is not much better. Now, let me be clear that I do think that the intention of these campaigns are good, by saying that everyone is beautiful we are typing to be inclusive of everyone. Everyone is beautiful suggests that there isn’t just one standard. Additionally, I do think that everyone should have the right to love their self, regardless of what others think or say. Only, why do women have to be beautiful? This idea of everyone being beautiful means that their appearance is at least equally, if not more, important to one’s skills, thoughts, and opinions. In other words, telling women that they are beautiful tells women that their value is based on their looks. I recently read a great post on The Belle Jar that partly inspired this post, and I offer you an excerpt of the author’s writing, as I cannot do it justice:

We never say that all men deserve to feel beautiful. We never say that each man is beautiful in his own way. We don’t have huge campaigns aimed at young boys trying to convince them that they’re attractive, probably because we very rarely correlate a man’s worth with his appearance. The problem is that a woman’s value in this world is still very much attached to her appearance, and telling her that she should or deserves to feel beautiful does more to promote that than negate it. Telling women that they “deserve” to feel pretty plays right in to the idea that prettiness should be important to them.

Finally, take the lyrics of Trainor’s “All About that Bass” as an example of the messages we are sending to women: “Yeah it’s pretty clear/I ain’t no size two…But I can shake it, shake it/Like I’m supposed to do…I got that boom boom that all the boys chase/All the right junk/In all the right places.” And later she sings about how skinny women are “bitches” and that “boys like a little more booty to hold at night.” What seemingly was a well-intentioned song about body positivity and anti-size two, now shames women who naturally have those bodies. But even further, and maybe even more disturbing, is the fact that a woman having curves in “the right places” (meaning, a woman can still have curves in the wrong places) is what a woman is supposed to do, and ultimately it is for the pleasure of none other than the male. So, yet again, women’s appearances are subject to the male gaze and women are valued based on their attractiveness. The standard has just changed.

Why do we have to be beautiful? Why do we have to be strong? Why can’t I be ugly and smart? Isn’t that good enough? Why do my looks matter? Why must we talk about women’s bodies? Because, regulating looks, either through positive or negative mechanisms, is still control over women and their bodies. Reducing the woman to her looks dehumanizes her and objectifies her. I am more than my looks. There is more than what appears on the outside.

Pieces to Read:

Chrisler, Joan C. 2012. ‘“Why Can’t You Control Yourself?’ Fat Should Be a Feminist Issue.” Sex Roles 66(9-10): 608-616.

Diedrichs, Pillippa C., Christina Lee, and Marguerite Kelly. 2011. “Seeing the Beauty in Everyday People: A Qualitative Study of Young Australians’ Opinions on Body Image, The Mass Media, and Models.” Body Image 8(3):259-266.

Photo of my Color Me RAD team before and after the race. (I’m second from the left in the top photo). Photo source: mine.

Recently, I ran a 5k called “Color Me Rad” with a group of friends from my department as a chance to just enjoy the southwest Virginia fall and not work for once. I was excited to participate in this race especially because unlike other races that I’ve run, this seemed like I would enjoy myself in a cultural event that I’ve always wanted to experience. As I got to the race, however, I couldn’t help but think sociologically about the cultural appropriation (ironic, as the race was a week prior to Halloween) of the Hindu Festival of Colors, called Holi. Was I culturally experiencing Holi, or was it merely commodified?

Holi is a Hindu religous spring festival primarily observed in India and Nepal. It starts with a Holika bonfire the night before the actual festival, and then there is a free-for-all carnival of colors where people play, chase, and throw colored powders (often chalk or cornstarch) or water (think water balloon fight or water guns). As the festival occurs, the people and streets are delightfully colored to celebrate the end of the winter and the emergence of spring. Sounds fun, no?

I recall one class in college where I learned about cultural appropriation: the professor gave us the example of henna. While it is used in certain celebrations and religious events, he told us that the purpose of henna is to decorate and make a person look beautiful, much like makeup. Then, as henna becomes popular in Western societies, he questioned us, does people getting henna tattoos with more Westernized images, such as a “Tweety Bird,” serve henna’s purpose or is it appropriating certain non-Western cultures? Now, that was a while ago, so my memory might be a little fuzzy, but I believe he had the conclusion that because henna was being used to its purpose, and as long as it is being recognized as a part of culture, then it wasn’t appropriation. You may not agree, but this is just what one person said.

But this color run that I participated in is a whole different level. Allow me to “paint” you a picture: you have easily 1,000 people of all ages dressed head-to-toe in white, each paying anywhere from $25-55 (depending on when you registered) to dance around, do Zumba, run, and leave in powdered hues of blue, pink, green, and yellow. All for the ability to say that I ran a 5k, get messy, and have a new profile picture. Sounds similar to Holi… kind of?

Yet, there is more to this than meets the eye. What about the mere fact that you had to pay quite an exorbitant amount to participate? Color Me Rad claims that a portion of their proceeds go to a local charity, this time being Special Olympics, but how much? That was undisclosed information. But that gets me to my larger point- this cultural event has become commodified and now profits off of a culture to the benefit of some White, Western executives. At no point in the event, and only after some digging on the RAD website, did I find any mention about Holi, and how the run is “loosely based” off of the holiday, excluding the celebratory act of spring and other traditions. Mind you, this is despite the fact that companies are even now forgoing the run and just hosting a “color party.” One unnamed Hindu blogger was quoted, “Come uncultured, leave uncultured – that’s the color-run promise … Honestly, the Color Run™ does absolutely nothing to give credit where it’s due.  And to add insult to injury, they’ve trademarked our tradition.” In an ironic commodification, Holi has become white-washed.

So while I had fun bonding with my cohort, I think we should think twice about participating in this event again. I’ll just go bowling instead. Probably better for my knees anyways.

Pieces to Read:

Agrawal, Nadya. Nd. “Dye-ing Culture: Color Run, White-Washing Holi Since 2012.” Brown Girl. http://www.browngirlmagazine.com/2013/04/color-run-controversy/

Howes, David, eds. 1996. Cross-Cultural Consumption: Global Markets, Local Realities. London: Routledge.

Kingswood, Mary. 2014. “Think Before You Run: Cultural Appropriation and The Color Run.” The Geneva Voice. http://www.genevavoice.com/think-before-you-run-cultural-appropriation-and-the-color-run/

Ziff, Bruce and Pratima V. Rao, eds. 1997. Borrowed Power: Essays on Cultural Appropriation. New Brunswick: Rutgers.

It is that time of year when theses, dissertations, and proposals are being prepared for defense. My thesis intends to examine the scripting of a normative student identity with special attention to sexuality in study abroad orientation programs. Only, when it came to prepare my literature review, it came as a shock to me that there is little discussion of homonormativity in education, let alone a conceptualization of homonormativity and organizations more generally. In a world where non-heterosexual identified individuals are increasingly visible, included, and accepted, we need to consider how this is happening and what are the implications, consequences, and stipulations.

But wait, first, what homonormativity? Why hasn’t anyone talked about this?

Duggan (2002:172) defines the “(new) homonormativity,” as “politics that [do] not contest heteronormative assumptions and institutions, but upholds and sustains them, while promising the possibility of a demobilized gay constituency, and gay culture anchored in domesticity and consumption.”  Recently, there has been an increasing visibility and extension of particular rights and inclusion to the LGBT community such as same-sex marriage. These sexual rights, Duggan (2002) continues, are only extended to certain LGB individuals, however, “on the condition that every other key aspect of the gay self exhibits what would be considered ‘normal’ gender, sexual, familial, work, and national practices” in order to strengthen heteronormative hegemony and social boundaries of acceptability (Seidman 2010:324). In other words, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are included within the pre-existing heteronormative framework, rather than a new framework that is all-encompassing and inclusive (Duggan 2002; Seidman 2010), thus establishing a homonormativity. This affects not only marital arrangements so that same-sex couples may marry (but still must only be between two individuals), but also other forms of comportment including gender roles and performance, sexual practices, family arrangements, consumption, travel, and work organizations.

While there is a plethora of research that examines gendered, racialized, classed, and heteronormative organizations that structurally excludes sexual diversity, the literature overlooks this recent “inclusive” shift of homonormativity. Yet, utilizing concepts these concepts, we can begin to make the case for homonormative organizations.

In 1990, Joan Acker reconceptualized organizational theory by claiming that organizational structure is not gender neutral: the ways organizations function and are structured, rather than their mere characteristics, are an iterative process that both reflect and helps construct gender roles. For example, a “job” is an abstract category that has no body, no human occupant, with no gender or sexuality and no outside obligation. As that job is filled, the worker becomes separated from their human existence outside of their job’s role and duties. Males who fill that job have lives that depend on the job, while female workers have outside obligations such as family and childcare. So while the conceptualization of a “job” is presented as gender neutral, it is reality gendered masculine: ‘“A job’ already contains the gender-based division of labor and the separation between the public and the private sphere. The concept of ‘a job’ assumes a particular gendered organization of domestic life and social production” (Acker 1990:149)

Relatedly, the organizational structure is also heteronormative by constructing, reproducing, and valuing certain sexual practices that uphold the heteronormative and gender hierarchy. “Organizational interactions are ‘implicitly structured by sexual preference routinely ascribed to gender identity’” (Hassard et al. 2000:11 qtd in Richardson and Monro 2012:109). As jobs are gendered, certain sexual orientations, preferences, and practices are intertwined in the expectations of that role in order to perpetuate the gendered hierarchy. Sexuality includes a broad array of subjects, each of which are highly ingrained in organizational functioning and workers’ lives, including but not limited to bodily desire, flirting, appearance, sexual behavior, sexual harassment, emotional attraction, and identity (Richardson and Monro 2012). In other words, while all workers are inherently sexual, organizations are also sexual by valuing and policing the boundaries of only certain sexualities.

By conceptualizing the sexual worker to be heterosexual or to be living within a merely exclusive heteronormative framework, research actually reflects and upholds heteronormative exclusion of the queer community. While heteronormativity is a reality, explaining organizations in merely heteronormative terms does not fully explain the lived experiences of the LGBTQ community, as they are increasingly included within the mainstream, however defined by heteronormativity. In the memorable words of Ward and Schneider (2009:435), “Discernment of heteronormativity must include attention to its companion, homonormativity.” How can we conceptualize homonormativity in the organization? How are organizations not only heteronormative, but also homonormative?

Pieces to Read

Acker, Joan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender & Society 4(2):139-58.

Duggan, Lisa. 2002. “The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism.” Pp. 175-94 in Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics, edited by R. Castronovo and D. D. Nelson. Durham: Duke University Press.

Seidman, Steven. 2010. “From Identity to Queer Politics: Shifts in Normative Heterosexuality and the Meaning of Citizenship.” Citizenship Studies 5(3):321-28.

Richardson, Diane and Surya Monro. 2012. Sexuality, Equality & Diversity. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Ward, Jane and Beth Schneider. 2009. “The Reaches of Heteronormativity: An Introduction.” Gender & Society 23(4):433-39.

Williams, Christine and Patti Giuffre. 2011. “From Organizational Sexuality to Queer Organizations: Research on Homosexuality and the Workplace.” Sociology Compass 5:551-63.

http://thesocietypages.org/sociologylens/files/2008/11/feminist-fist.jpg

Happy new year! I hope that this year finds you with accepted publications, good grades, and time for sleep.

Each year, starting mid-December, begins the season for “ratings” and lists of the “best” and the”worst” moments, outfits, songs, movies, actors, or whatever you can put in a list of the previous year. As my Facebook feed quickly turns from photos and status updates to comical BuzzFeed lists, I came across one interesting list this year that I had not seen before: Mic.com’s “The 39 Most Iconic Feminist Moments of 2014.” Of course I quickly shared the article, primarily so I can refer to it later for this post, but it received no “likes” or “comments” on my Facebook (a page with relatively frequent activity). That may come as no surprise, as the word “Feminist” was voted by Time Magazine readers as the word to be banned in 2015, and other significant backlash against feminist ideals (see also Rachel Rademacher’s piece here about how we still need feminism). Rereading the list today, however, I am unsure how I feel about this list: mixed feelings about the rise in publicity of feminist ideals but also what qualifies as feminist and how we must rank them.

Pros. 

This list is comprehensive of popular and widely reached feminist moments of 2014, I am surprised. While it is not perfectly representative, it does show how the feminist movement is shifting from its past of White, middle-class, married women. Some highlights include:

1) Malala Yousafzai accepted the Nobel Peace Prize — and went straight back to chemistry class

4) A survivor brought her mattress — and sparked a national movement.

9) Laverne Cox didn’t break barriers, she crushed them.

11)  #YesAllWomen reached almost 2 million tweets in under four days.

13)  Beyoncé danced in front of the world — and a gigantic feminist banner.

15) Lupita Nyong’o forced Hollywood to take blackness seriously.

35) Joseph Levitt-Gordon became the face for male feminists everywhere.

It does not cease to amaze me that wide array of visibility that feminism had this past year, from popular media and celebrities such as Beyonce and Taylor Swift, LGBT issues such as Janet Mock, Laverne Cox, and Ellen Page, transnational issues such as Malala Yousafzai, race issues such as Lupita Nyong’o and the women of Ferguson, masculinity such as Joseph Levitt-Gordon and Aziz Ansari, policy and law, sexual harassment and assault, social movements, and everything in between. While we have many strides left to go, this list is promising to show how feminism is still relevant, and changing and growing in inclusivity and popularity with each year.

Cons.

With that being said, I still feel conflicted about the idea of how we must rate and rank feminist moments of each year. The article’s author does not necessarily state her methodology in how these specific events were chosen beyond being “iconic”- how do we define iconic? Iconic to whom? What about impact and change? How would that all be measured? I think the thing I have the biggest problem is that while yes, Beyonce may rule the world and be more accessible to people worldwide, we are forgetting the small, day-to-day, efforts of feminists that don’t have unlimited resources and access to power to advertise their feminist moments. While yes these moments may be iconic, they are iconic for certain people. Wide reaching is not necessarily change, it does not make impact on lived realities. But it is a start. I do appreciate this list, I really do, but I would think twice about ranking them and calling them the “most” feminist of 2014.

So What Does This Mean?

While I may not necessarily have something overtly sociological to say about this article, it nevertheless speaks loudly to the way in which popular culture and feminism both interact and shape one another overtime. I like to look at this list primarily positive- a list of strong people of all genders, sexualities, nationalities, religions, and races (though ability is something lacking) standing up for an important cause and acknowledging that while many strides have been made, there are many more to go. It is iconic moments of feminism that, while carry a sense of privilege due to their social positionality, that still carry significant weight and ability to be far reaching. When we still have stars saying that they have never experienced discrimination or inequality, or rejecting the word “feminist” merely based on connotation, this list proves that there is something still to stand for. Is this a new wave of feminism, or are our voices just a little bit stronger and louder than before?

Pieces to read:

Munro, Ealasaid. “Feminism: A Fourth Wave?” Political Insight 4(2):22-25.

Waters, Melanie (ed). 2011. Women on screen : feminism and femininity in visual culture. Basingstoke, New York : Palgrave Macmillan.

On Christmas, my family decided to spend some time at the movies watching the newly released movie Into the Woods, a movie rendition of Stephen Sondheim’s infamous operetta/musical by the same name.  The musical begins with an original story involving a childless baker and his wife and their quest to begin a family, though cursed by a witch for stealing magic beans from her garden. The show intertwines the plots of several fairy tales by Brothers Grimm  such as Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk, Cinderella, and Rapunzel, among others and follows them to explore the consequences of the characters’ wishes and quests: a classic “Be careful what you wish for” story.

Now, while I typically enjoy musicals as I grew up a kid on the stage myself, I couldn’t help but think sociologically about various plot twists and how certain unfortunate circumstances were justified and rectified through rules of heteronormativity and, arguably, homonationalism.  Granted, previous research has discussed almost ad nauseum about the heteronormativity of Disney movies, I was shocked at how theatre, a common place for queering and challenging concepts of reality and normality, still abided by heteronormative and homonormative rules.

**Please note: there are movie “spoilers” in this post.

While I am positive that there are many critiques and other interpretations of Into the Woods online, I doubt that many, if any, really discuss the theoretical underpinnings of what is going on. This is by no means a comprehensive list or interpretation of every scene in the movie, here I focus on one character- the baker’s wife.

In the story, she longed to have a child, but was cursed by the witch as a result of her father-in-law’s actions. Here, she is portrayed as a victim of her circumstances, as all she desires is to fulfil her “womanly” role as a mother. The witch offers her a solution to her wishes, to bear a child, as long as she completes a task that requires collecting a white cow, golden shoe, blonde hair, and a red cape. Through the first half of the movie, therefore,  she attempts to help her husband, the baker, in his quest to gather items for the witch to lift her curse. How these are collected, however, would arguably be questionable ethically, as she cheats and lies to Jack (of the Beanstalk) by trading his cow for 5 beans (which she did not know were magic) and cons Rapunzel in letting down her hair by impersonating Prince Charming. By fairy tale and morality standards, the manner in which she attempts to obtain these items is not “womanly,” but her actions are made comical and even justified by her overall goal to have a child. In a sense, her desire to be a “true” woman, to complete her family, trumps any immoral action because in the end, she is doing what a woman should do for her family- anything it takes.

Upon successful completion of the witch’s task, she is immediately with child (nearly 8-9 months along), and has a beautiful baby boy. The second act, however, is where her plot gets interesting. After what at first appears to be an earthquake, she, her husband, and child lose their path in the woods on the way home, and come across a giant who makes them hunt down a little boy (Jack) who killed her son. The baker’s wife and baker at one point separate to find Jack, and the baker’s wife come across Prince Charming. At this point, there is a comical song about lust and how they should not kiss and how she has her family while he has his princess, and yet it ends with the two kissing (and suggestive of other activity). The prince leaves the baker’s wife after their “affair” and the baker’s wife resumes her task, only to have her world literally shaken by the giant’s footsteps, leading the baker’s wife to attempt to hide from the giant’s path and fall to her death in a ravine. In this cause and effect/wishes and consequences plot, because of her lust and weakness to commitment to her family, the baker’s wife is ultimately punished by death. Again and again in Disney movies is the mother or female figure either killed or evil, placing blame on the woman. Especially in this case, while Prince Charming does lose his wife (Cinderella) due to his affair, he still gets to live his life of luxury and royalty. The baker’s wife, because she ultimately betrayed her role of “mother” and “wife” did she be punished.

There are lots of other little instances in the movie/play that hint towards heteronormative and homonormative consequences, the baker’s wife especially gives insight to an especially gendered consequence of womanhood. While I would like to blame this on the wonderful world that is Disney, unfortunately this plot goes beyond that. In what ways does theatre provide a possible venue for reimagining the current social forces? Will we ever see those adaptations on the big screen?

Pieces to Read:.

Buikema, Rosemarie, and Iris van der Tuin (eds.). 2009. Doing gender in media, art and culture. London ; New York : Routledge.

Charlebois, Justin. 2011. Gender and the construction of hegemonic and oppositional femininities. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.

Lacey, Katrina A. 2008. “Authoring the Other: Regarding Race and Gender in a Multicultural Adaptation of the Classic Fairytale Cinderella.” ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Arizona State University.

Mallan, Kerry. 2009. Gender dilemmas in children’s fiction. Basingstoke [England] ; New York : Palgrave Macmillan.

Radner, Hilary and Rebecca Stringer. 2011. Feminism at the movies : understanding gender in contemporary popular cinema. Oxon ; New York : Routledge.

Over the past few months, I have been deep in the throes of my thesis- conducting, transcribing, coding, and analyzing interviews- on homonationalism and scripting of student identities in study abroad. While my findings are still very preliminary, there has been a series of answers that have really stuck with me regarding “queer culture” and “queer space.” If you read my post about what homonormativity is, then you know that it involves the depoliticization and privatization of sexuality, while all in the name of heteronormativity. In this new norm, then, where is queer space? Is there a queer politics? Should there be a queer life?

In one interview, I had a participant discuss their desire to surround themselves as much as possible with queer friends in queer spaces discussing queer things. They talked about how their parents asked them why they must always surround themselves with “gay things.” They responded that the majority of space and culture is heteronormative (I was shocked to find out that they knew the word “heteronormativity,” let alone use it); it is a straight culture that has began to allow queer individuals live in it. Their choice to surround theirself with queer friends in queer spaces doing “queer” things (in which he discusses LGBTQ rights clubs), is their active choice to reject the heteronormative structure that limits their ability to truly be theirself.

As they was saying this, I thought about a book that I read in the Fall of 2012, Finding the Movement, by Anne Enke (2007). Enke argues that feminist spaces, or physical and social geographies, were created and are structured around gender, race, class, and sexuality that, in turn, shaped and exceeded feminist identification. Spaces such as bars, warehouse or dollar parties, coffeehouses, and bookstores become the location in which feminists sought to directly change inequality, generating a movement against the day-to-day physical, and consequently social and symbolic, barriers that they faced. Issues such as violence, health, access to information, and sexual and gender expression, among others, drove women to create new public institutions oriented around women’s needs, resources, and wants and thereby create a “massive groundswell of feminist activism by directly intervening in the build environment” (7). Enke argues, “We might pay more attention to people’s embodied but not static locations in a world of ‘constitutive sociality.’ Rather than holding identities responsible for causing divisions, a spatial analysis instead sees the consolidation of identities as an effect of spatial practices” (9).

She goes into depth in one part of her book discussing The Soul Sisters, an all-female, black, lesbian softball team. She argues that the softball diamond became a contested space of activism because of the resulting political actions taken by the seemingly apolitical softball team, who just wanted to play ball. Applying this logic in modern-day homonormative structures, I feel pulled between the historical significance, queer space, and radical politics of the LGBTQ movement (thinking of Stonewall and Compton’s Cafeteria; lesbian communes, bookstores, and clubs; the Castro and The West Village; and Pride for example) and the subtle inclusion of the LGBTQ community presently. While yes, the current political movement of the LGBTQ community may be depoliticized in terms of “in-your-face” radical politics, is there a manner in which our apolitical actions still contest and challenge the heteronormative framework? Are there still current queer spaces and a (however diverse) queer culture?

One of my interview questions asked about their thoughts between being “gay” and living a gay lifestyle. Many of the respondents talked about how studying abroad really was not informed by their sexuality, yet that component of their life cannot be removed from their everyday actions and decisions. Every time they decided whether or not to come out to someone or to go visit a local queer space or not, for example, they were making decisions however subtly, about how they choose to contest heteronormative spaces. While yes, I was disappointed to hear that some of my respondents did not even know the historical importance of the Pride Parades and had no interest in them because they were “too gay,” it was the little, mundane forms of comportment that were seemingly apolitical that still made an impact on the space that they inhabit.

This is all to say, while not everyone may obsess over The L Word and have a rainbow HRC bumper sticker or march the streets for equality, even within a depoliticized queer culture, there is something to be said about having a queer space. There is a way to contest heteronormativity within, it just may not appear to be so at plain sight.

To read:

Enke, Anne. 2007. Finding the Movement: Sexuality, Contested Space, and Feminist Activism. Duke University Press.

Duggan, Lisa. 2002. “The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism.” Pp. 175-94 in Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics, edited by R. Castronovo and D. D. Nelson. Durham: Duke University Press.

Duggan, Lisa. 2003. The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.

“Purl3″. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons – http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Purl3.jpg#mediaviewer/File:Purl3.jpg

In college, I double majored in both women and gender studies as well as sociology, It was not until the spring of my sophomore year, however, that I was introduced to the sociological theory of doing gender, by West and Zimmerman. Since then, I have utilized their theory, along with concepts of “undoing,” “redoing,” and most recently, Kristen Schilt’s concept of “doing heteronormativity.”

When I was considering what I should write for my post this week, I was inspired by George Byrne’s post of an old paper that he wrote during his undergraduate studies. Rather than posting an old paper however, I went back through my old papers and stumbled upon a paper that I wrote on doing gender, examining a series of observations I made of men doing their gender and masculinity in a female space– a knitting warehouse– and below I offer a summary of my paper’s finding, as well as a my newest understanding of my previous work based on my new understanding of doing, undoing, redoing gender, masculinity, and heteronormativity. Not only is gender ever only done, but gender is constructed as a result of power structures.

Originally used as a tool for survival, knitting produced clothing and other forms of protection such as nets. The earliest woven garment capable of being studied, a woolen sock, dates from the Bronze Age (Kiewe 1969). Women, surprisingly, were not the only ones who knitted. Sailors and fisherman, male-held occupations, were among the first knitters. They repaired nets with knit stitches and fulfilled clothing needs. Knitting also allowed long hours while at sea to pass (Watterson 2010). Knitting quickly spread as a communal effort, because all members of the family would knit goods to send to their troops at war. The slogans “Make do and mend” and “Knit your bit” enforced the practice (Stoller 2003). In many countries, knitting served as a source of income; men and women knitted, knowing it “yielded a poor pittance, but it was the next best thing to starvation.”

It was not until the Victorian Age did knitting become a gendered craft. The Industrial Revolution made production of clothed goods cheaper and faster than hand-knit products, leaving people less time to knit and more time to work and causing knitting to lose its profitability (Barrago 2010). Women who stayed at home became anxious for a purpose and expression of the self, so they knitted to cure their nervousness and hysteria (Pearl-McPhee 2005). Only the wealthy women, however, could afford such a luxury as time to knit. Rather than an occupational and survival tool, knitting became a feminine pastime. As knitting became a feminine gendered activity, knitting as the activity also adopted society’s assigned characteristics of the female gender. Turney explains a gendered dichotomy between “‘sporting male bodies’ that ‘display taut, rippling muscles’ and ‘discipline and strength’ [were used as] canvases for soft, supple ‘sporty’ knitted cardigans” (qtd. in Schley 2009).  She hypothesizes the “hypersexuality of knitwear” and how it is marketed – men cannot be passive knitters, but rather the masculine receiver of these delicate hand-made gifts that symbolize the love and emotions that went into its labor.

While I originally concluded in my paper that these men are knitters, a typically female activity, they are doing gender by either removing themselves from female associated spaces or by overcompensating by taking up as much space as possible and asserting their masculinity, I now believe that they were not consciously doing or undoing gender. Rather, by knitting, they are expressing feminine qualities that are not available to them in the gendered structure that impacts our lives, and therefore redoing gender as proposed by Connell (2010). These men’s actions may be observed as feminine gendered, but other things such as gestures, projects, color choices, clothing, and interaction, may remain masculine. In this case, it is not a matter of doing or undoing gender in the consciousness of a person, but rather, how a person perceives another person doing gender, which therefore reinforces and constricts gender behavior as an institution because of interactions: It is the eye of the perceiver versus the actor.

Yancy-Martin explains that as an institution, gender cannot be destroyed but rather adapted. The idea that a person is attempting to “undo” gender is ineffective because that person is still perpetuating gender norms. A male may be participating in a female activity, but by recognizing it as a female activity, the gender dichotomy is still enforced. The male knitters I observed, whether consciously or unconsciously doing or redoing gender, are expressing supposed feminine qualities that are reinforced by a gendered social structure, which defines our actions. Despite whether or not knitting makes a man masculine or a man feminine, according to the social institution, gender is one or the other, no in-betweens. In today’s society, male knitters may appear feminine or masculine, but either way, they are doing and redoing gender.

Pieces to Read:

Barrago, Ann. 2010. “A History of Knitting.” Sooper Articles. http://www.sooperarticles.com/hobbies-articles/craft-articles/history-knitting-97532.html.

Connell, Catherine. 2010. “Doing, Undoing, or Redoing Gender?” Gender and Society 24(1): 31-55.

Kiewe, Heinz Edgar. 1969. The Sacred History of Knitting. Oxford: Art Needlework Industries Limited.

Pearl-McPhee,Stephanie. 2005.  At Knit’s End. North Adams: Storey Publishing.

Schley, Sara. 2009. “The Culture of Knitting.” The Times Higher Education. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=409140&sectioncode=26.

Stoller,Debbie. 2003. Stitch and Bitch. New York: Workman Publishing.

Watterson,Sharon. 2010. “Like Passions- Knitting Hath Gender Equality.” examiner.com. http://www.examiner.com/knitting-in-providence/like-passions-knitting-hath-gender-equality.

West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender and Society 1(2): 125-151.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/lilithvf1998/22505798/

In 2007, Sue introduced the idea of microaggressions- small remarks or statements that carry harmful, derogatory, and/ or discriminatory implications against a group of individuals based on their identity, whether or not those implications are intended or not. Initially this concept was utilized to understand racial microaggressions, but in 2011 Kevin Nadal applied the microaggression framework to sexual orientation. While the concept of microaggressions first appeared in the counseling field, social scientists have begun to utilize this concept to understand the new, more subtle forms of oppression towards people of color, non-heterosexual identified individuals, women and gender non-conformants, among others. What is most important in their analysis, yet often only mentioned in passing, if at all, is the reasoning behind these microaggressions: hegemonic power.

According to Nadal et al. (2011; see also Nadal 2013) LGB microaggressions fit into nine categories: use of heterosexist terminology, endorsement of heteronormative culture and behaviors, assumption of universal LGBT experience, exoticization, discomfort or disapproval of the LGB experience, denial of societal heterosexism, assumption of sexual pathology or abnormality, denial of individual heterosexism, and threatening physical behaviors (see this video or this video for some examples). The endorsement of heteronormative culture and behaviors– either through overlooking diverse experiences or enforcing compulsory heterosexuality as the natural sexuality– serves as a microaggression. For example, through its performative construction, heteronormativity and heterosexuality are unmarked and unquestioned as the norm and original sexuality. By assuming that all people are naturally heterosexual, they are both endorsing heteronormativity while also negating the experience of LGB individuals. In addition, by scripting normative sexual identities in which individuals must fit, the assumption of a universal LGB experience also is a microaggression that negates and rejects any variation or threat outside of the norm (assumption of sexual abnormality). Further, the structures, policies, and practices of homonormative/heteronormative institutions, organizations, and systems can be microaggressive in nature, reproducing LGB individuals as a subordinated group, as they are structured with intentional and unintentional hostility and regulatory norms that police LGB individuals to fit within the pre-defined norms of heteronormativity (Nadal et al. 2011).

Nadal (2013) emphasizes that for individuals, sometimes just the mere feeling that they are unable to disclose their sexual orientation or identity because of a presumed unsafe environment, but not necessarily because of any specific heterosexist event targeted towards them, creates an microaggressive environment that is not inclusive of all individuals. In other words, the daily interactions and microaggressions that are experienced, presumed to be experienced, as well as institutional policies all interact to construct a politics of belonging and exclusion.

So why, if we know about these microaggressions, are they still happening? The answer that no one ever explicitly says is hegemonic power. I believe that homonormativity especially serves as a possible framework for understanding the power dynamics of microaggressions, because as we seemingly “accept” certain sexual practices, we still limit them within the bound norms of heteronormativity.Within the heteronormative/homonormative world, deviancy from the norm is not only devalued, but is consistency regulated and controlled. In other words, individuals who are non-heterosexual are continuously put into their “rightful” place in the sexual hierarchy through not only physical oppression, but also the smaller, everyday “cuts”–as Nadal calls them– that accumulate overtime. So yes, while the emotional and psychological consequences of sexual microaggressions are very real and serious, so is the pervasiveness of the inequality and hierarchy of various sexualities and sexual practices. Additionally, as certain rights are extended to the LGBT community, we begin to think that we are a “post-sexist” society, where everyone is equal regardless of sexuality, yet these slight, ingrained, backhanded comments, however unintentional, still serve to put non-heterosexuality in its place.

Pieces to Read:

Nadal, Kevin. 2013. “Sexual Orientation Microaggressions: Experiences of Lesbain, Gay, and Bisexual People.” Pp. 51-79 in That’s So Gay! Microaggressions and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community, edited by K. L. Nadal: American Psychological Association.

Nadal, Kevin L., Marie-Anne Issa, Jayleen Leon, Vanessa Meterko, Michelle Wideman and Yinglee Wong. 2011. “Sexual Orientation Microaggressions: “Death by a Thousand Cuts” for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth.” Journal of LGBT Youth 8:234-59.

https://texaslynn.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/transgender-pronouns.jpg

Have you read the recent New York Times article about Bruce Jenner and about their transition? While their gender identity is not yet confirmed, media has picked up this story and gone wild with the concept of olympian turned family millionaire turned media star is now “turning” into a woman. Every time, however, that I read a new headline about this story, I get shivers up and down my spine, not to mention the amount of pure rage and disappointment on how the media not only misrepresents, but actually oppresses the trans community by mislabeling these individuals with the use of the wrong pronouns. Simply put, refer to the person using the pronoun they identify with.

While that concept does not seem so difficult, rarely are pronouns correct, and this is a function and consequence of how we police gender roles and exert power of the cisgender identity and norm over all other identities. For example, in the New York Times article, the authors write:

There have been other prominent transgender people in recent years: Chastity (now Chaz) Bono, whose parents are Sonny and Cher; Larry (now Lana) Wachowski, a producer, director and screenwriter; and Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning, the soldier convicted of leaking classified documents in the WikiLeaks case. The most famous example in sports remains the tennis player Renee Richards, who started life as Richard Raskind, had gender reassignment surgery in 1975 and won the right to play on the women’s tennis circuit.

Breaking this down, the authors consciously chose to not use these individuals’ real names they identify with that match their real gender identity, but rather what they deem as “real”, which in actuality, is a social construction of normal, ideal, and “natural” gender that is inextricably intertwined with biological sex (which itself is socially constructed as well). These names, Chaz, Lana, and Chelsea are how we should be referring to these individuals, because that is who they are.

Another example in this horrid article includes:

“He was a hell of an athlete,” said Keith Jackson, who covered Mr. Jenner’s Olympic triumph while working as a sportscaster in 1976. “Women would stand in line just to shake his hand; young people responded to him — the Olympians at all levels, as far as I could tell. The announcer for the high jump used to give Bruce the business for being so attractive to everybody.”

While, yes, in the past Bruce identified as a male and so in the context of talking about Bruce as an athlete, I could maybe justify use of male pronouns, this quote exemplifies the overt heteronormativity and policing of Bruce’s masculine gender in juxtaposition to the (obviously natural and opposite) feminine characteristics of a woman as Bruce transitions. In the past, Bruce was all man- athlete and lady’s man. Now? Well… It also draws my thoughts to an overt concept of gendered nationalism (a la Yuval-Davis), likely even homonationalism, in which we frame Bruce as the young, viral olympian, a representative of the strength and power of America, so we frame their transition as a loss or a feminization of the nation itself.

This isn’t to say that this is the only place in which we police gender through pronoun use, it’s just one of the first major and visible places where we can publically critique its flaws. I think particularly of public records and forms, where individuals only have the choice of “male” or “female” when asked gender. There is the rare occasion that “other” is included, with good intentions, but has damaging effects, in which we are literally othering non-cisgender binary individuals. I always make it a point when I am introducing myself to not only state my name, but also include the pronouns that I use.

On a side tangent, that is an important thing to note: never should it be preferred pronoun use (as in “which pronouns do you prefer?”), but pronouns that you use (as in “what pronouns do you use?”) The former indicates that a preference is a choice and an opinion and other pronouns are acceptable, whereas the latter indicates that the pronouns to which you refer to someone are not a choice, but mandatory. This practice also gets individuals into the habit of never assuming how individuals identify, as identity and presentation are not always aligned.

Kevin Nadal (2013), in discussing sexual microaggressions, makes note on trans-specific microaggressions, which is especially important seeing the increasing rate of violent crimes against trans-individuals, especially women of color. While these pronoun and name slips (if they are slips, giving the benefit of the doubt) may be unintentional, they invalidate and deny individuals their lived reality and existence in addition to normalizing and upholding cisgender identities and roles. So while Bruce may not have new pronouns as of yet, at best the authors should have chosen a more neutral pronoun such as “they,” as I consciously did throughout this article, or attempt to refer to the individual by name (the name they go by). Otherwise, we are just continually limiting the definition of gender and police the boundaries of who we consider to be a man or a woman (or any other gender identity a person may identify).

Pieces to Read:

Nadal, Kevin. ed. 2013. That’s So Gay! Microaggressions and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Community. American Psychological Association.

Twenge, Jean M., W. Keit Campbell, and Brittany Gentile. 2012. “Male and Female Pronoun Use in Books Reflects Women’s Status, 1900-2008.” Sex Roles 67(9-10):488-493.

My first year of graduate school was rough. Really rough. I had a hard time transitioning and moving from an undergraduate institution that I loved to a school (though I love it now) that was no where near the top of my list of schools I wanted to attend. To make matters worse, when I sought out advice from other graduate students, there was no place, no sense of community, for the graduate students to gather and discuss. When I turned to the internet, I was shocked to find that there wasn’t even a sociological blog for graduate students and by students to share our experiences, advice, and woes.

Flash forward to almost a year and a half later, where I am in a much better place with research underway, a completed degree in sight, friends, a few publications, and this role with Sociology Lens. Now with these experiences under my belt, I feel that it is time that I “pay it forward” to fellow and future graduate students who may be in the same place that I was in last year. Sociology Lens, I felt as I was joining the team, was perfect– graduate students, all of which think with a critical sociological lens, writing for graduate students. Who better to give advice than fellow people living through the same situation at the same time? Granted context is always different, whether it be forms of identity, location, department culture, or whatever, current advice from current students is much needed.

With much work and determination, I am honored to introduce that that is what we have upcoming for the month of April: “Graduate Student Advice Month:” real advice from real graduate students for graduate students. We have worked together over the past two months compiling a list of relevant topics pertinent to graduate students today, from publishing to teaching to work/life balance. This thematic month will begin on Wednesday, April 1st with a piece by George Byrne entitled, “Five things I wish I had know before starting my PhD.” Each post will be categorized as “special issue” and tagged with “GradMonth” so that you can easily find each post. Also make sure to check us out on Twitter, comment on our posts, and share our pieces far and wide! Together, we can start a dialogue and strengthen our community. We hope that you enjoy.

Check Us Out on Twitter:

@SociologyLens

Huw Davies: @huwcdavies

Scarlett E. Brown: @ScarlettEBrown

Tara Stamm: @TaraStammily

Roger Tyers: @RogerTyersUK

George Byrne: @_GeorgeByrne

Megan Nanney: @mpnanney

Source: Shit Academics Say Twitter @AcademicsSay

When I’m not busy working on my classwork, thesis or on Sociology Lens posts, I serve as the inaugural Managing Editor for the new American Sociological Association’s Section on Racial and Ethnic Minorities’ journal Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, published by Sage. In this capacity, I am responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the journal including author inquiries and managing our submission portal. Being in this position gives me an insider position to the black box of publishing a manuscript. First, I will explain the manuscript publication process, and then I will conclude with my “Managing Editor’s list of do’s and don’ts when publishing.”

Publishing Process*

Once an author has a manuscript written, they choose one journal to submit it to and upload it through (typically) their online submission portal. This submission process typically includes information about word count, permissions, funding, abstract, and keywords.

Once it’s been submitted, a managing editor (like me) will review the manuscript for “fit” and/ or “format,” ensuring that the manuscript follows the submission guidelines. All too often do we receive manuscripts that are either over the word count or do not utilize the correct citation style and must be rejected immediately before the manuscripts makes it to reviewers or the editor.

Of the manuscripts that are in the correct format, I randomly assign an editor (since my journal has multiple editors) to review the manuscript. They read the manuscript in depth, and choose to either immediately reject the manuscript–if it either is not ready for peer review or will simply not fit with our journal- or send the manuscript out for review.

The editor then invites reviewers that are hopefully within the same sub-field as the manuscript, so that comments and feedback is relevant and well-informed. Sometimes this step takes multiple weeks, as reviewers either reject the invitation to review for time or personal reasons, or is not interested (or sometimes disagrees with) the piece. Those reviewers that do accept the invitation are given a period of time, typically near 8-10 weeks, to complete a review which includes constructive feedback about the piece’s methods, findings, argument, and structure. The reviewers are able to give comments back to both the author and the editor, as well as their recommendation for the piece- “accept,” “revise and resubmit,” or “reject.”

Once all three reviews are completed (this can potentially take months if it takes multiple months to even get three people to agree to review), the editor renders a decision about the piece. There are multiple decisions that can be made- accept outright, conditional acceptance, resubmit with minor revisions, resubmit with major revisions, and reject. At this point, the author takes the necessary steps to correct and resubmit their manuscript in the time allotted. Then the process occurs all over again.

For those manuscripts that are accepted, congratulations! At this stage, the authors then receive a copyright contract that lays out the terms and conditions of the publication (that this piece will not be published elsewhere) and the piece is prepared for the publication editor. As it is sent off to the publication team, there it is copy-edited and “proofed.” In approximately 1-2 months time, the author will receive their manuscript in .pdf format that it will look like in the journal. This is the last chance that the author is given to make any last minute changes and check over that everything looks correct. After the proofs are completed and returned, all that is left is waiting for the piece to be published!

Meanwhile, the editors are compiling a list of the available accepted and proofed manuscripts for upcoming issues and completing a Table of Contents based on themes, theories, methods, and findings. So sometimes it takes a few months after the proof stage to even see the article in print if there is a backlog of articles waiting to be published.

*Note that not all journals use the same process. Look on their website to find out their specific process, and if you don’t find the answer, email them a question! It’s always better to ask than guess wrong and have your manuscript rejected.

Managing Editor’s List of Do’s and Don’ts in Publishing

Based on my experience, I see time and time again the same mistakes made by authors submitting manuscripts. If you want to make your life easier when trying to publish, here are some things to watch out for:

1. Follow the manuscript guidelines! These guidelines spell-out in detail exactly the format of submissions including word count, citation style, and section order. If I receive a manuscript over the word count by even one word, unfortunately I have to reject it without even considering its contents. Oftentimes what is submitted and what a manuscript looks like in publication are very different. If you have any questions about the guidelines, email the managing editor, they are more than capable to help you. You can find these guidelines often on the journal’s website or submission portal. I cannot stress enough that formatting (including word count, double spacing, margins, citation style, section order, etc) is critical.
2. Blind your manuscript! Many journals these days use a double blind system, which means that the authors and reviewers do not know who each other are. This way there is no intimidation or power at play, in addition to rivalries that may be at stake. Do not identify yourself in any way in the manuscript. If you must cite your own work, do not say, “in previous work I argued this” and finish off with a complete citation. If I can figure out who you are, so can the reviewer, especially now with the internet.
3. Know your editors! As you submit your manuscript, you’ll also have the option to submit a cover letter or letter to the editor. This is your space to thank them and explain why you think this should be considered. But, if you address the editors not by name, by the wrong name, or even not by the right title, that sends the wrong message. (Hint: not all managing editors have their PhDs… yet).
4. Be patient! We all want our manuscripts considered in a timely manner, but sometimes things are complicated. In fact, we just had a manuscript where we invited 11 reviewers  before 3 accepted to review. That took nearly 3 months, and then each reviewer has another 2.5 months to review. So no, we don’t have a decision for you one month after you submitted your manuscript.
5. Be on time! We understand that there extenuating circumstances, but try your best to make deadlines. We have deadlines too, and sometimes you missing a deadline can cause your research to not be published.

Source: “https://openclipart.org/download/173434/interview.svg”

A couple of weeks ago, in my Social Issues in Qualitative Methodology course, I was assigned to give a presentation on the “technologies of interviewing.” At first, I was told by older cohort members that I was lucky because I had the easiest topic: “Just do the history of the recorder.” As I googled the topic, thinking that it would then be some cool history and development I found that my predecessors had just done a timeline of photos of how the recorder has changed over time. How boring! Who would want to sit through a 20 minute lecture, slide after slide, talking about the recorder, especially when we’re supposed to be talking about the social issues involved in qualitative methods?

My advice to you, graduate students, today is to avoid this typical pitfall in your methods classes (as both student and instructor): revamp your lessons so they can be of some actual use! Below I offer an example of how I revamped this “simple and easy topic” to something that students can actually use and learn from.

One of the major takeaways that I wanted my fellow students to grasp is the different utilities of different forms of technologies. I began the class with a 10 minute exercise where I passed out a transcription of a 3 minute interview I found on YouTube. I really enjoy using modern technology in my classes and presentations in order to keep energy fresh and to engage different styles of learning. I gave the students about 4 minutes to read over the transcript. I then played just the sound (no video) of the same interview, and they had the ability to read along with the transcript. I chose to throw in a little curveball in this, as the interview itself was in English, but was of two British individuals, thus adding a dialect/accent to the mix. After listening to the sound clip, I showed them the YouTube video of the interview. With all three formats, I opened the class up to discussing which format they preferred or disliked and why; what aspects did you gain or miss in other formats? What about dialects in the transcription? What about pauses or intonation? What about body language?

With students beginning to actually think about the different types of ways the same interview can be recorded, I proceeded to break down the different types of technology available- not just simply recorders. First, there are the “simple” technologies, that aren’t actually so simple such as utilizing your senses and taking field notes. Then, of course, are the more classic technologies such as the recorder, microphones, headphones, and the transcription foot pedal. Lastly are newer and more modern technologies that we rarely discuss in qualitative methods courses such as Skype and other video conferencing, phone interviews, online forums such as chat rooms, social media, tablets, online surveys, photography, and software (including NVivo, Dedoose, Atlas.ti, Survey Monkey, Qualtrics, Garage Band, Audacity, WireTap Studio, and Express Scribe).

What I found most important in this whole lecture, however, is how this information was disseminated. Rather than the simple “here are the classic technologies and the history of them” lecture, I took the same information and applied a sociological lens to it. What social and political (not to mention ethical) considerations are there with new technologies? What about cost, money, access, accuracy, electricity and access to wifi, setup? What about the public/privacy of the internet and confidentiality measures? What do you do when technology fails us? When is state-of-the-art technology necessary?

I find that in my classes, regardless of educational level, that simply lecturing is never enough. Rather, trying to find a way to critically engage students and have them think about even the most mundane topics can open up their minds and a whole world of possibilities for learning. Something as simple as a 5-10 minute “warm-up activity” really gets the students’ “feet wet” into a topic. Sure, sometimes it can be difficult to come up with an activity for certain topics, but what questions can be asked for even small group discussion in order to critically examine what we think is so “ordinary” or even the most routine lecture? Feel free to comment below with other pedagogical and methodological teaching strategies you have to engage your students and peers!

Pieces to Read:

„Rapley, Tim. 2007. Doing Conversation, Discourse, and Document Analysis. London: Sage.

„Mehrabian, Albert. 1971. Silent Messages. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

„http://www.vermontfolklifecenter.org/archive/archive-fieldguides.html

„http://www.empmuseum.org/programs-plus-education/for-educators/educational-resources/oral-history-resources/equipment-resources.aspx

And so here we are. Four weeks, 14 posts later. It never ceases to amaze me what we here at Sociology Lens have done here: we have created a space for graduate students to offer advice to other students. No where else is there a space specific for students to seek out advice and community, especially Sociology discipline-specific, from other students. I am ecstatic that this is now a resource that students will be able to come to for years.

Throughout this month, our editors discussed many topics from applying to PhD programs (by Roger Tyers) to the job search (by Tara Stamm), from having children (by Tara Stamm) to personal relationships (by Scarlett Brown), from blogging (by Roger Tyers) to publishing (by Megan Nanney), among many others. The wide breadth of topics shows just how much there is for graduate students to talk about, think about, and deal with on a daily basis. In fact, in just 2 days, George Byrnes piece “5 Things I Wish I had Known Before Starting my PhD Program” had nearly 6,000 hits! Even though the themed month has come to an end, I hope that we can keep these dialogues open either through our comment function, Twitter, or with future posts.

While there is always more to be said as our contexts and social circumstances, here I want to offer additional resources that have been provided to me over the years that people should feel free to use, share and distribute, and contribute to. May we continue to share our experiences, offer support and advice, and more importantly look out for not only the future of the discipline itself, but also those people within the discipline.

Resources:

Professional Development

• Academic Coaching and Writing: these folks offer coaching services for a fee, but they also have occasional free webinars that can be really helpful. Some recent titles: Academic Branding: Improving Your Visibility, Network, and Career Opportunities; Managing the Imposter Syndrome in Academia: How to Overcome Self-Doubt; and more! Sign up to receive their email newsletter to gain access: http://www.academiccoachingandwriting.org/
• Kerry Ann Roquemore’s National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity. Some resources are free; others are quite expensive but might be worth a look for later on: http://www.facultydiversity.org/

Getting Organized

• Peter Bregman’s “18 minutes” method
• The Clockwork Muse
• Various organization methods discussed in Overwhelmed, by Brigid Schulte

Sociology Specific Blogs (by Faculty)

• Tanya Golash-Boza’s Get a Life, PhD blog
• Karen Kelsky’s The Professor Is In blog
• ASA’s Student Sociologist Online Newsletter

Comedic Relief

•  Sh*t Academics Say
• XKCD
• GradHacker
• What Should We Call Grad School?

For that Darned Thesis/ Dissertation

• Finish Your Thesis
• Dissertation Diva
• Dissertation Research
• To Do Dissertation

General Graduate Student Support

• The Grad Student Way
• Gradland
• GradShare

Financing

• Broke Grad Student

Source: http://pixabay.com/en/law-justice-justizia-blind-scale-311363/

I know that I’ve written about my thesis a few times, but at last I have completed my research, written the formal document, and defended its status, certifying me as an official “master.” But if there is one thing that I have learned in my past two years of graduate school, that would be that there is always more work to  be done. There are always new ways of rethinking concepts, new ways to empirically test hypotheses, and new research questions that come out of research.

One of these new ways of thinking arose when I had the difficulty of “proving” homonationalism’s presence in study abroad. Granted, while I believe that qualitative, or even “social” more generally, research cannot actually prove anything, evidence paired with theory suggests particular outcomes or behavioral patterns. Consistently throughout my interviews, participant observation, and analyses of online sources I found that rather than a blatant exclusion of non-heterosexuality or heteronormative stance, that sexuality in general, both heterosexual and non-heterosexual alike, were excluded from the study abroad preparatory process. In fact, in interviews, students said that their sexuality “didn’t matter,” “wasn’t a big deal,” or “never caused a problem.” This lack of sexuality, however, did not prove that non-heterosexuality was accepted, let alone tolerated. So how can this exclusion, or erasure, of sexuality be explained? Is it homonormativity?

Recalling that the homonormative “gay constituency” is anchored in neoliberal values of assimilation, domesticity, privatization, and consumption, Duggan (2002, 2003) argues that values of pro-corporation, “free” market, independence, and privatization of economic and market practices are highly valued. In discussions of neoliberalism, however, these economic values tend to be decoupled from their cultural politics, such as sexuality. Pairing the economic, political, and social effects of neoliberalism, Duggan (2002:179; 2003) describes the homonormative invocation of “a phantom mainstream public of ‘conventional’ gays who represent the responsible center” that serves to shrink the gay public sphere that contests the current liberal framework and reroutes sexual difference to the domestic and private sphere. Differences in sexuality, in other words, are moved from the public eye and are privatized to the home sphere to perpetuate an image of unity. In other words, the particular social and political rights that are now being granted to lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals are not seen, at first glance, as acts of control because they are continually structured as the original, natural, and normal type of behavior that everyone should aspire to, yet they actively reaffirm prevailing social relations.

Drawing upon Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s (2003) concept of colorblind racism, study abroad orientation programs could be considered “sexually-blind” by arguing that sexuality is a non-factor, which leads to erasing sexual differences yet reinforces the status quo. He highlights the concept of abstract liberalism as a central frame to colorblind racism where the dominant group articulates and constructs our social world as if race is no longer a factor or that racism no longer exists. Rather, inclusion and acceptability is liberalized and remains up to the individual to work towards their entre, inclusion, and equal status within the community.

Similar to this concept, by acknowledging that sexuality is no longer is a factor, we become blind to the realities of sexual differences in regards to discrimination and social hierarchies that are in play throughout homonationalism that define and police the boundaries of who the “good gay” and the “bad gay” is. In other words, as is the case of my thesis, by arguing that no student, regardless of their identity, should worry or enact upon their sexuality, we still reinforce the status quo of who the “good” and “bad” gay are, by a matter of their individual actions. We hear it all the time, if you really think about it: “I’m gay, but…” By being blind to sexuality, or sexual differences, we relegate identity, and differences, to the private sphere. It’s not necessarily that we are inclusive of all sexual differences, nor is sexual oppression over, rather, it just has taken a new form– back in the closet. I may be out, I may not be a part of the majority, but this one facet of my life is so minimal, no different from the majority.

This also blinds us to the potential reality that the LGB communities may be better off or more accepted elsewhere, which in turn perpetuates the assumption that the United States is the superior community that is supposedly “inclusive” while others are far more risky and inferior in comparison. Rather than dismantling the closet to accept and include all people regardless of sexual identity, the closet merely gets bigger to create the illusion of being inclusive, while in reality still controlling, containing, and ignoring difference within the terms of acceptability.

Pieces to Read:

Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2003. Racism without Racists: Color Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

Duggan, Lisa. 2002. “The New Homonormativity: The Sexual Politics of Neoliberalism.” Pp. 175-94 in Materializing Democracy: Toward a Revitalized Cultural Politics, edited by R. Castronovo and D. D. Nelson. Durham: Duke University Press.

Duggan, Lisa. 2003. The Twilight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press.

Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

(Photo from Flickr user thisisbossi)

I recently came across an article on my Facebook feed about high school senior Ronald Nelson, who was accepted into all 8 ivy league colleges (among other highly competitive schools). The article discussed how, despite this amazing opportunity for Nelson to attend arguably one of the better colleges in the nation, he ultimately chose to attend University of Alabama (which is still a decent school). According to Business Insider, “After some thought and consideration of all the schools’ offers, Nelson decided it wouldn’t be worth the financial strain to use this money on his undergraduate education.”

Talk about the rising costs and burden of affording college is everywhere. The Wall Street Journal just announced that the graduating class of 2014 has the highest student debt in history, with the average student owing $33,000 after college. So for Nelson, attending a less competitive school that offered him a full ride scholarship was a strategy, as he plans on attending graduate school (where that debt only accumulates…). Seems like a smart choice, right?

Not according to Sociologists of Education who study and believe in undermatching theory.

Hoxby and Avery (2012) found that a majority of students who come from low income backgrounds but have high academic promise or ability never apply to a single “highly competitive” college. In other words, their college choice (or even just where they apply) is undermatched to their academic ability. This theory has grabbed national attention, with the White House issuing press releases regarding the issue. It is argued by undermatching student ability, the students then are not living up to their full (read: productive) potential. Nelson, as undermatching theory might argue, despite the fact that he applied to the Ivy colleges and was accepted, ultimately undermatched his ability (proven by this acceptances) by enrolling in a less competitive and less prestigious school, regardless that it ultimately offered the most resources and aid.

However, digging into this a little more, this theory has some issues when looking at cases such as Nelson’s.* Bastedo and Flaster (2014) highlight that when considering the advantages of attending a prestigious (read: competitive) college, such as greater resources, prestige, and academic opportunities, that this only appears for the very top percentage, essentially the Ivys. They argue that the match that really should matter is not level of competitiveness and academic ability, but whether or not a student enrolls in a community or 4-year college. As the cost of college increases, thus limiting access, it is crucial that the goal be for more disadvantaged students earn a bachelor’s degree at all.

Further, undermatching research predicts student acceptance outcomes and enrollment based on test scores such as the SAT or ACT and grades, while college applications are leaning towards more holistic approaches. Nevermind the fact that standardized test scores are correlated with income, students coming from more disadvantaged schools and neighborhoods likely have less opportunities and resources to be as competitive as other students.

Finally, Bastedo an Flaster (2014) emphasize that even with more resources, more competitive schools, while promising that 100% of student need is met, this aid is merit based and does not meet the needs of every students. As in Nelson’s case, he was not offered full rides by any of the Ivy schools, and had he attended one of these schools, he would likely have had to take out student loans and/or have a campus job to pay for college, which can impact the level of involvement of the student and their academic success. Yet it was a less competitive school that offered him financial aid and entrance to the honors college. While at a less competitive school, he is still academically engaged while also able to spend his time in other activities that can enrich his CV/resume for graduate studies.

So then, is Nelson really undermatched in his ability at University of Alabama? I do not think so. Given the rising costs of college, by attending a less competitive school that gave him full aid, he is actually able to further develop his ability by having a more involved experience in college. College prices are too high, and students today must make strategic decisions as to where and how to go to college. Rather than being concerned about whether or not ability, in the name of productivity, is being undermatched, maybe we should concern ourselves more with the burden of attending college and how that impacts student decisions.

*Please note: This does not mean that undermatching does not exist nor is it not important. I am simply arguing that when utilizing undermatching theory, we need to consider the larger structural issues that create the situation in which undermatching occurs, such as high school resources, utilizing standardized test scores, or lacking understanding of social background and familial influences such as financial need.

Pieces to Read:

Bastedo, Michael N., and Allyson Flaster. 2014. “Conceptual and Methodological Problems in Research on College Undermatch.” Educational Researcher 43(2):93-99.

Smith, Jonathan, Matea Pender, and Jessica Howell. 2013. “The Full Extent of student-College Academic Undermatch.” Economics of Education Review 32:247-261.

Fosnacht, Kevin. 2014. “Selectivity and the College Experience: How Undermatching Shapes the College Experience among High-Achieving Students.” Presented at the AERA Annual Meeting April 2014.

Hoxby, Caroline M., and Christopher Avery. 2012. “The Missing ‘One-Offs': The Hidden Supply of High-Achieving, Low Income Students.” NBER Working Paper No. 18586.