Sex, sexuality, gender, body, sexism, patriarchy.
To be honest, the choice of sociological lenses in this module were chosen before the case study ‘Mogadishu’ was chosen, so the topic of sexuality doesn’t really come up in the play. Sex does, between Amanda and her husband, but apart from that, the play does not explore themes of contemporary debates regarding sexuality. You are free to explore this topic, but none of the characters discuss it, so you would be on shaky ground if you tried to assume something that is not supported by the script of the play.
SO, sexism, however, is widely expressed in the play, both in obvious (spectacle) displays of sexist words and behaviour and also in hidden (governmentality) structures that women are less than equal to men.
Sexism, or Patriarchy?
Giddens sets the scene for this, reminding us of the same debate that happens regarding race, when he says “because a trait is more or less universal, it does not follow that it is biological in origin; there may be cultural factors of a general kind that produce such characteristics” (Giddens, 2013; 624-625). By this he means that the observation that man tend to be stronger and more aggressive than women is a universal observation- that applies in all parts of the world. But we cannot conclude from this observation that male dominance is a natural biological feature of men. To take this view would mean that you are a ‘determinist’ or ‘essentialist’. The philosophers use both terms, and they mean to say that biology determines male dominance, or males are ‘essentially’ dominant because of their biological makeup- their genes or because of evolution.
Whilst genes and evolution may be an influence on why men are more dominant in society, argues Giddens, this does not mean that it is the only, or even main, influence. His argument, reflecting that of many modern sociologists, is that cultural factors are also significant. Culture shifts and changes, therefore it is not inevitable that men should remain dominant in society. of course, there is no more evidence that social patterns like male dominance are only cultural, but that is where the debate then kicks-off. The arguments are then about the extent to which we are controlled by biological factors or cultural factors.
Gender
Giddens also reflects contemporary thought by stating “gender is a socially created concept that attributes differing social roles and identities to men and women” (Giddens, 2013;651). Gender shifts the debate away from why it seems that men are dominant in society, into exploring the notion of social roles and identities: what a person is, and whether their genitals and genes directly correlate with how they act in society, and how they are seen by society. Are women essentially different from men because they have different genitals (biological difference), or are their genitals irrelevant to whether someone does the household ironing (social role)?
Early sociologists, like Talcott Parsons, were functionalists. Their understanding of gender roles is influenced by their concern that society should operate efficiently, smoothly and perhaps even harmoniously. So different gender roles were like the role specialisation that he understood to be efficient about a modern shoe factory. In early shoe making a craft expert would make the whole shoe, preparing the leather through to fixing the aglet (see Phineas and Ferb) on the lace. But in the well-functioning modern factory, there was role specialisation. You could make more shoes, and pay employees less, if they only had one simple job. The aglet clipper’s job was simply to crimp thousands of aglets to laces.
The same functional specialisation is then applied to the whole of society. The role of looking after the household, include child care, becomes a special task for the expert, the woman. Going out to work, and making money (even to the point of being the only one qualified to count the household money) becomes the man’s job. This is both a simplistic and historically inaccurate description of those roles, but it suits the capitalists (as a Marxist would argue) because they can make more money. The functionalists also suggest that the skillset is because of the emotional capacities of men and women. ‘Women are more expressive, and therefore more caring; and men are more instrumental, and therefore more suited to functional tasks that don’t require emotion’, say the functionalists. Giddens concludes (2013;653) that there “is no basis to the belief that the ‘expressive’ female is necessary for the smooth operation of the family- rather it is a role that is promoted largely for the convenience of men”.
Is your experience of your gender (the social attributes) the same as your biological sex? The chances are, that it does. Most people experience their gender as consistent with their body- people with male genitals wear men’s clothes. But even the clothes and the ways in which we decorate our bodies express gender is shifting (fluid) ways. Pink was associated with maleness until quite recently. Some people find, however, that they prefer (feel more comfortable) wearing clothes strongly associated with people of the other sex. In a world where ever greater numbers of women wear trousers, very few men wear dresses, especially floral print ones. When they do, people are surprised.
Take this picture of the comedian, Eddie Izzard, from the Guardian newspaper. Do the shaped and painted fingernails surprise you?
Sexism
Sexism is discrimination between people due to their perceived gender, biological sex, or both. Sexism can take the form of blatant discrimination such as only assuming men are qualified to do particular work, or thinking women are best at home with the children, or far more subtle views about the value of particular genders as friends, co-workers, or simple humans.
You will also need to explore the term ‘patriarchy’. Is it significant that Giddens’ Sociology text contains no reference to the word ‘sexism’?
Lisa Dominelli is perhaps the leading authority on patriarchy within social work as a profession. Across the book below, she is posing the question: is caring womans’ work?
Watch this film about how children talk about gender. Why do you think children think and talk this way?
Patriarchy
I want you to watch this film. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrfkoGCK0SE
I’m not going to embed the film as I would normally do, because it definitely does not represent an academic view on this topic, and will probably infuriate you. But being infuriated is good, because this film shows up a lot of weaknesses of so-called ‘research’ that is informed by the internet.
Firstly, we should look at who the narrator is: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Sargon_of_Akkad. He has a clear track record of a specific diatribe approach to his topics. He calls himself “a “classical liberal” and an entirely objective, neutral, non-ideological person” even though it is impossible to be entirely neutral and objective about social topics. He also says that “I do my own research and I try to be thorough”. I want you to watch closely for the sources he uses. He uses films of people who talk about patriarchy, but are carefully picked to suit his own argument. He choses all sorts of rubbish opinion-piece websites where people who don’t know any better are spouting as much tripe as he is. He uses a dictionary, but rightly says that we should not rely on an ordinary definition of a word, but an academic one. So he looks at WIKIPEDIA! At no point does he reference a real academic text, and dismisses statements he doesn’t like by sniggering. He doesn’t argue against, or provide evidence of another view; he just laughs to make the point sound silly. Need I go on? Where we derive our academic and professional ideas MUST be taken from authoritative sources and carefully argued, with abundant evidence. (As a side note, I was also infuriated that he used pictures of my religious leaders, who are called Patriarchs for different reasons, to illustrate patriarchy as an academic term).
So, what is ‘patriarchy’, then? In academic terms?
Liberal feminists, says Giddens (2013;653) do not see individual acts of sexism and “women’s subordination as part of a larger system or structure”. But if we follow Michel Foucault’s logic of power and control, we can argue take a Marxist inspired interpretation and see that there are structures, processes and cultural attitudes that create the conditions for society to operate. These conditions are maintained by both spectacle (obvious acts of demeaning women, or laws that prevent women voting, owning property or opening a bank account. Until the 20th century women could only own property in the name of their father or husband) and governmentality, which involves more subtle acts and attitudes that influence people’s mentality that suggests that men are better at money, and therefore should make the financial decisions of the household. The stats shown in the film above that suggest that women control most of the wealth in the USA is rubbish, because it is a well known tax dodging trick to vest excess wealth in one’s wife or children to avoid tax liability. Whether the women who own this wealth are free to spend it as they wish is a matter of ‘governmentality’.
I can’t find a satisfactory academic definition of patriarchy in Giddens, but sociologist Sylvia Walby (1997) has composed six overlapping structures that define patriarchy and that take different forms in different cultures and different times:
- The state: women are unlikely to have formal power and representation
- The household: women are more likely to do the housework and raise the children.
- Violence: women are more prone to being abused
- Paid work: women are likely to be paid less
- Sexuality: women’s sexuality is more likely to be treated negatively
- Culture: women are more misrepresented in media and popular culture
She does not produce a single definition of patriarchy, but she lists the contexts within which patriarchy becomes visible. There is a good reason for this: it is an ongoing debate, and the issue is not simplistic. A simple definition would almost certainly be wrong.
Mansplaining
Finally, I feel like I have been mansplaining. Here I am, a white, anglo-Norman, middle class, heterosexual, married and mortgaged man, telling you about feminism and patriarchy.
Here’s a woman to tell you what mansplaining is. It is a reliable source because the narrator references her sources of evidence throughout.
References
Walby, Sylvia. (1997) Theorizing Patriarchy. Cambridge: Polity Press.
