Week 4 critical analysis

  

1. RDSJ4: Catalano, Blumenfeld, & Hackman, Introduction (pp. 341-353) 150 words

2. RDSJ4: Johnson, Patriarchy, the System (pp. 362-367) 150 words

3. RDSJ4: Kimmel, Masculinity as Homophobia (pp. 381-386) 150 words

4. RDSJ4: Marcotte, Overcompensation Nation: (pp. 386-388) 150 words

5. RDSJ4: Kirk & Okazowa-Rey, He Works, She Works (pp.      373-374) 150 words

6. RDSJ4: National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health,      Statement on Healthcare for All (pp. 446-447) 150 words

7. RDSJ4: hooks, Feminism (pp. 359-362) 150 words

8. RDSJ4: Katz, Violence against Women is a Men’s issue, (pp.  425-429) 150 words

9.  Video: Tarana Burke on Why She Created the #MeToo Movement — Where It’s Headed 100 words

https://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-metoo-movement-started-where-its-headed-tarana-burke-time-person-of-year-women-2017-12

10.  Video: Panel of accomplished men discuss the #MeToo Movement 100 words

11.  Video: Yee Won Chong, Beyond the Gender Binary 100 words

12.  Video: The Bechdel Test for Women in Movies 100 words

13.  Video: Sexism, Strength and Dominance: Masculinity in Disney Films 100 words

14.  Video: Dove Evolution 100 words

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U

FEMINISM: A MOVEMENT

TO END SEXIST OPPRESSION
bell hooks

A central problem within feminist discourse has been our
inability to either arrive at a consensus of opinion about what
feminism is or accept definition(s) that could serve as points of
unification. Without agreed upon definition(s), we lack a sound
foundation on which to construct theory or engage in overall
meaningful praxis. Expressing her frustrations with the

absence of clear definitions in a recent essay, “Towards A

Revolutionary Ethics,” Carmen Vasquez comments:

We can’t even agree on what a “Feminist” is, never mind
what she would believe in and how she defines the

principles that constitute honor among us. In key with the

American capitalist obsession for individualism and anything
goes so long as it gets you what you want. Feminism in
American has come to mean anything you like, honey.
There are as many definitions of Feminism as there are
feminists, some of my sisters say, with a chuckle. I don’t
think it’s funny.

It is not funny. It indicates a growing disinterest in feminism
as a radical political movement. It is a despairing gesture
expressive of the belief that solidarity between women is not
possible. It is a sign that the political naivete which has

traditionally characterized woman’s lot in male-dominated culture
abounds.

Most people in the United States think of feminism or the
more commonly used term “women’s lib” as a movement that
aims to make women the social equals of men. This broad
definition, popularized by the media and mainstream

segments of the movement, raises problematic questions. Since
men are not equals in white supremacist, capitalist,

patriarchal class structure, which men do women want to be equal to?

Do women share a common vision of what equality means?
Implicit in this simplistic definition of women’s liberation is a
dismissal of race and class as factors that, in conjunction with
sexism, determine the extent to which an individual will be
discriminated against, exploited, or oppressed. Bourgeois white
women interested in women’s rights issues have been satisfied
with simple definitions for obvious reasons. Rhetorically

placing themselves in the same social category as oppressed
women, they were not anxious to call attention to race and
class privilege.

Women in lower class and poor groups, particularly those
who are non-white, would not have defined women’s liberation
as women gaining social equality with men since they are
continually reminded in their everyday lives that all women do

not share a common social status. Concurrently, they know
that many males in their social groups are exploited and
oppressed. Knowing that men in their groups do not have
social, political, and economic power, they would not deem it
liberatory to share their social status. While they are aware
that sexism enables men in their respective groups to have
privileges denied them, they are more likely to see exaggerated
expressions of male chauvinism among their peers as

stemming from the male’s sense of himself as powerless and

ineffectual in relation to ruling male groups, rather than an

expression of an overall privileged social status.* From the very onset
of the women’s liberation movement, these women were

suspicious of feminism precisely because they recognized the

limitations inherent in its definition. They recognized the possibility
that feminism defined as social equality with men might easily
become a movement that would primarily affect the social
standing of white women in middle and upper class groups
while affecting only in a very marginal way the social status of
working class and poor women.

Not all the women who were at the forefront of organized
women’s movement shaping definitions were content with
making women’s liberation synonymous with women gaining
social equality with men. On the opening pages of
Power: The Movement for Women’s Liberation,
Cellestine Ware, a black woman active in the movement, wrote under the
heading “Goals”:

Radical feminism is working for the eradication of

domination and elitism in all human relationships. This would
make self-determination the ultimate good and require the
downfall of society as we know it today.

Individual radical feminists like Charlotte Bunch based
their analyses on an informed understanding of the politics of
domination and a recognition of the inter-connections between
various systems of domination even as they focused primarily
on sexism. Their perspectives were not valued by those

organizers and participants in women’s movement who were more
interested in social reforms. The anonymous authors of a

pamphlet on feminist issues published in 1976, Women and the

New World, make the point that many women active in women’s
liberation movement were far more comfortable with the
notion of feminism as a reform that would help women attain
social equality with men of their class than feminism defined
as a radical movement that would eradicate domination and
transform society:

Whatever the organization, the location or the ethnic com
position of the group, all the women’s liberation

organizations had one thing in common: they all came together
based on a biological and sociological fact rather than on a
body of ideas. Women came together in the women’s

liberation movement on the basis that we were women and all
women are subject to male domination. We saw all women
as being our allies and all men as being the oppressor. We

never questioned the extent to which American women
accept the same materialistic and individualistic values as
American men. We did not stop to think that American
women are just as reluctant as American men to struggle
for a new society based on new values of mutual respect,
cooperation and social responsibility.

It is now evident that many women active in feminist
movement were interested in reform as an end in itself, not as a
stage in the progression towards revolutionary

transformation. Even though Zillah Eisenstein can optimistically point to
the potential radicalism of liberal women who work for social
reform in The Radical Future of Liberal Feminism, the process
by which this radicalism will surface is unclear. Eisenstein
offers as an example of the radical implications of liberal

feminist programs the demands made at the government-sponsor-
ed Houston conference on women’s rights issues which took
place in 1978:

The Houston report demands as a human right a full voice
and role for women in determining the destiny of our world,
our nation, our families, and our individual lives. It

specifically calls for (1) the elimination of violence in the home and
the development of shelters for battered women, (2) support
for women’s business, (3) a solution to child abuse, (4)

federally funded nonsexist child care, (5) a policy of full
employment so that all women who wish and are able to work may
do so, (6) the protection of homemakers so that marriage is a
partnership, (7) an end to the sexist portrayal of women in
the media, (8) establishment of reproductive freedom and
the end to involuntary sterilization, (9) a remedy to the
double discrimination against minority women, (10) a revi
sion of criminal codes dealing with rape, (11) elimination of
discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, (12) the
establishment of nonsexist education, and (13) an

examination of all welfare reform proposals for their specific impact
on women.

The positive impact of liberal reforms on women’s lives
should not lead to the assumption that they eradicate systems
of domination. Nowhere in these demands is there an

emphasis on eradicating the politic of domination, yet it would need to
be abolished if any of these demands were to be met. The lack of
any emphasis on domination is consistent with the liberal
feminist belief that women can achieve equality with men of
their class without challenging and changing the cultural
basis of group oppression. It is this belief that negates the
likelihood that the potential radicalism of liberal feminism will
ever be realized. Writing as early as 1967, Brazilian scholar
Heleith Saffioti emphasized that bourgeois feminism has
always been “fundamentally and unconsciously a feminism of
the ruling class,” that:

Whatever revolutionary content there is in petty-bourgeois
feminist praxis, it has been put there by the efforts of the
middle strata, especially the less well off, to move up
socially. To do this, however, they sought merely to expand

the existing social structures, and never went so far as to
challenge the status quo. Thus, while petty-bourgeois

feminism may always have aimed at establishing social

equality between the sexes, the consciousness it represented has
remained utopian in its desire for and struggle to bring
about a partial transformation of society; this it believed
could be done without disturbing the foundations on which
it rested…In this sense, petty-bourgeois feminism is not
feminism at all; indeed it has helped to consolidate class
society by giving camouflage to its internal

contradictions…

Radical dimensions of liberal women’s social protest will
continue to serve as an ideological support system providing
the necessary critical and analytical impetus for the

maintenance of a liberalism that aims to grant women greater

equality of opportunity within the present white supremacist

capitalist, patriarchal state. Such liberal women’s rights activism
in its essence diminishes feminist struggle. Philosopher Mihailo
Markovic discusses the limitations of liberalism in his essay,
“Women’s Liberation and Human Emancipation”:

Another basic characteristic of liberalism which

constitutes a formidable obstacle to an oppressed social group’s
emancipation is its conception of human nature. If selfish
ness, aggressiveness, the drive to conquer and dominate,
really are among defining human traits, as every liberal
philosopher since Locke tries to convince us, the oppression
in civil society-i.e. in the social sphere not regulated by the
state-is a fact of life and the basic civil relationship
between a man and a woman will always remain a battle
field. Woman, being less aggressive, is then either the less
human of the two and doomed to subjugation, or else she
must get more power-hungry herself and try to dominate
man. Liberation for both is not feasible.

Although liberal perspectives on feminism include reforms
that would have radical implications for society, these are the
reforms which will be resisted precisely because they would set
the stage for revolutionary transformation were they

implemented. It is evident that society is more responsive to those
“feminist” demands that are not threatening, that may even
help maintain the status quo. Jeanne Gross gives an example
of this co-optation of feminist strategy in her essay “Feminist
Ethics from a Marxist Perspective,” published in 1977:

If we as women want change in all aspects of our lives, we
must recognize that capitalism is uniquely capable of co
opting piecemeal change…Capitalism is capable of taking
our visionary changes and using them against us. For
example, many married women, recognizing their

oppression in the family, have divorced. They are thrown, with no
preparation of protection, into the labor market. For many
women this has meant taking their places at the row of
typewriters. Corporations are now recognizing the capacity
for exploitation in divorced women. The turnover in such

jobs is incredibly high. “If she complains, she can be
replaced.”

Particularly as regards work, many liberal feminist reforms
simply reinforced capitalist, materialist values (illustrating
the flexibility of capitalism) without truly liberating women
economically.

Liberal women have not been alone in drawing upon the
dynamism of feminism to further their interests. The great
majority of women who have benefited in any way from
feminist-generated social reforms do not want to be seen as
advocates of feminism. Conferences on issues of relevance to
women, that would never have been organized or funded had
there not been a feminist movement, take place all over the
United States and the participants do not want to be seen as
advocates of feminism. They are either reluctant to make a
public commitment to feminist movement or sneer at the term.

Individual African-American, Native American Indian, Asian
American, and Hispanic American women find themselves
isolated if they support feminist movement. Even women who
may achieve fame and notoriety (as well as increased economic
income) in response to attention given their work by large
numbers of women who support feminism may deflect

attention away from their engagement with feminist movement.
They may even go so far as to create other terms that express
their concern with women’s issues so as to avoid using the term
feminist. The creation of new terms that have no relationship
to organized political activity tend to provide women who may
already be reluctant to explore feminism with ready excuses to
explain their reluctance to participate. This illustrates an
uncritical acceptance of distorted definitions of feminism
rather than a demand for redefinition. They may support

specific issues while divorcing themselves from what they assume
is feminist movement.

In a recent article in a San Francisco newspaper, “Sisters
Under the Skin,” columnist Bob Greene commented on the
aversion many women apparently have to the term feminism.
Greene finds it curious that many women “who obviously
believe in everything that proud feminists believe in dismiss
the term “feminist” as something unpleasant; something with
which they do not wish to be associated.” Even though such
women often acknowledge that they have benefited from
feminist-generated reform measures which have improved the
social status of specific groups of women, they do not wish to be
seen as participants in feminist movement:

There is no getting around it. After all this time, the term
“feminist” makes many bright, ambitious, intelligent women
embarrassed and uncomfortable. They simply don’t want
to be associated with it.

It’s as if it has an unpleasant connotation that they
want no connection with. Chances are if you were to present
them with every mainstream feminist belief, they would go
along with the beliefs to the letter-and even if they con
sider themselves feminists, they hasten to say no.

Many women are reluctant to advocate feminism because they
are uncertain about the meaning of the term. Other women
from exploited and oppressed ethnic groups dismiss the term
because they do not wish to be perceived as supporting a racist
movement; feminism is often equated with white women’s
rights effort. Large numbers of women see feminism as syn
onymous with lesbianism; their homophobia leads them to
reject association with any group identified as pro-lesbian.
Some women fear the word “feminism” because they shun
identification with any political movement, especially one

perceived as radical. Of course there are women who do not wish to
be associated with women’s rights movement in any form so
they reject and oppose feminist movement. Most women are
more familiar with negative perspectives on “women’s lib”
than the positive significations of feminism. It is this term’s
positive political significance and power that we must now
struggle to recover and maintain.

Currently feminism seems to be a term without any clear
significance. The “anything goes” approach to the definition
of the word has rendered it practically meaningless. What is
meant by “anything goes” is usually that any woman who
wants social equality with men regardless of her political

perspective (she can be a conservative right-winger or a nationalist
communist) can label herself feminist. Most attempts at

defining feminism reflect the class nature of the movement.

Definitions are usually liberal in origin and focus on the individual
woman’s right to freedom and self-determination. In Barbara
Berg’s The Remembered Gate: Origins of American

Feminism, she defines feminism as a “broad movement embracing
numerous phases of woman’s emancipation.” However, her
emphasis is on women gaining greater individual freedom.
Expanding on the above definition, Berg adds:

It is the freedom to decide her own destiny; freedom from
sex-determined role; freedom from society’s oppressive re
strictions; freedom to express her thoughts fully and to
convert them freely into action. Feminism demands the
acceptance of woman’s right to individual conscience and
judgment. It postulates that woman’s essential worth stems
from her common humanity and does not depend on the
other relationships of her life.

This definition of feminism is almost apolitical in tone; yet it is
the type of definition many liberal women find appealing. It
evokes a very romantic notion of personal freedom which is
more acceptable than a definition that emphasizes radical

political action.

Many feminist radicals now know that neither a feminism
that focuses on woman as an autonomous human being
worthy of personal freedom nor one that focuses on the

attainment of equality of opportunity with men can rid society of
sexism and male domination. Feminism is a struggle to end
sexist oppression. Therefore, it is necessarily a struggle to

eradicate the ideology of domination that permeates Western

culture on various levels as well as a commitment to reorganizing
society so that the self-development of people can take

precedence over imperialism, economic expansion, and material
desires. Defined in this way, it is unlikely that women would
join feminist movement simply because we are biologically the
same. A commitment to feminism so defined would demand
that each individual participant acquire a critical political
consciousness based on ideas and beliefs.

All too often the slogan “the personal is political” (which
was first used to stress that woman’s everyday reality is
informed and shaped by politics and is necessarily political)
became a means of encouraging women to think that the

experience of discrimination, exploitation, or oppression

automatically corresponded with an understanding of the ideological
and institutional apparatus shaping one’s social status. As a
consequence, many women who had not fully examined their
situation never developed a sophisticated understanding of
their political reality and its relationship to that of women as a
collective group. They were encouraged to focus on giving voice
to personal experience. Like revolutionaries working to change
the lot of colonized people globally, it is necessary for feminist
activists to stress that the ability to see and describe one’s own
reality is a significant step in the long process of self-recovery.

Salon, Monday, Jun 13, 2016

http://www.salon.com/2016/06/13/overcompensation_nation_its_time_to_admit_that_toxic_masculinity_drives_gun_violence/

Overcompensation Nation: It’s time to admit that toxic masculinity drives gun violence.

Amanda Marcotte

In the wake of the horrific shooting in Orlando that left 50 dead, a political struggle is forming on whether to define this act as an anti-gay crime or an act of radical Islamic terrorism.

The answer, it’s quickly starting to seem, is both of these, and more. A picture is quickly starting to form of who Omar Mateen, the shooter, was. His ex-wife describes a man who was controlling and abusive. A colleague says he was always using racial and sexual slurs and “talked about killing people all the time.” Both his ex-wife and his father describe him as homophobic, with his father saying he spun into a rage at the sight of two men kissing. He was clearly fond of guns, having not one, but two concealed carry licenses.. He worked at a security firm, a career that can be attractive to men with dominance and control issues. He was investigated by the FBI in 2013 for making threats to a coworker.

There is a common theme here: Toxic masculinity.

Every time feminists talk about toxic masculinity, there is a chorus of whiny dudes who will immediately assume — or pretend to assume — that feminists are condemning all masculinity, even though the modifier “toxic” inherently suggests that there are forms of masculinity that are not toxic.

So, to be excruciatingly clear, toxic masculinity is a specific model of manhood, geared towards dominance and control. It’s a manhood that views women and LGBT people as inferior, sees sex as an act not of affection but domination, and which valorizes violence as the way to prove one’s self to the world.

For obvious political reasons, conservatives are hustling as fast as they can to make this about “radical Islam,” which is to say they are trying to imply that there’s something inherent to Islam and not Christianity that causes such violence. This, of course, is hoary nonsense, as there is a long and ignoble history of Christian-identified men, caught up in the cult of toxic masculinity, sowing discord and causing violence in our country: The gun-toting militiamen that caused a showdown in Oregon, the self-appointed border patrol called the Minutemen that recently made news again as their founder was convicted of child molestation, men who attack abortion clinics and providers.

Toxic masculinity aspires to toughness but is, in fact, an ideology of living in fear: The fear of ever seeming soft, tender, weak, or somehow less than manly. This insecurity is perhaps the most stalwart defining feature of toxic masculinity.

The examples are endless: Donald Trump flipping out when someone teases him about his small fingers. (Or about anything, really.) The ludicrously long and shaggy beards on “Duck Dynasty,” meant to stave off any association with the dreaded feminine with a thicket of hair. The emergence of the term “cuckservative,” flung around by hardline right wingers to suggest that insufficient racism is somehow emasculating. Conservatives absolutely are melting down about an Obamacare ad that suggested that, gasp, sometimes men wear pajamas.

(This ad traumatized them so much that many conservative pundits are still freaking out, years after the fact, that the Obama administration dared suggest the emasculating fabric of flannel pajamas, ever touched the skin of the American male. Indeed, it’s probably emasculating to suggest men have skin at all, since “skin” is such a ladified concept in our culture, what with the moisturizers and stuff.)

If toxic masculinity was just about men posturing around each other in a comical fashion, that would be one thing, but this persistent pressure to constantly be proving manhood and warding off anything considered feminine or emasculating is the main reason why we have so many damn shootings in the United States. Whether it’s Islamic terrorism or Columbine-style shootings or, as is the case with some of the most common but least covered mass shootings, an act of domestic violence by a man who would rather kill his family than lose control, the common theme is this toxic masculinity, a desire on the part of the shooter to show off how much power and control he has, to take male dominance to the level of exerting control over life and death itself.

Toxic masculinity is also the reason it’s so easy for men with major issues to get a hold of the high-powered weaponry necessary to commit these crimes. Sure, the pro-gun movement in this country likes to roll out a bunch of half-baked pseudo-arguments pretending at rationality to justify the lack of gun control in this country, but really, the emotional selling point of guns is that they feed the cult of toxic masculinity. Being able to stockpile weapons and have ever bigger and scarier-looking guns is straightforward and undeniable overcompensation insecure men, trying to prove what manly men they are.

That’s why any attempt to discuss putting even the smallest, most commonsensical restrictions on guns turns into a bunch of right wing dudes squealing about how the liberals are coming to take their guns. This isn’t a discussion being held on the plane of rationality, but is a psychological drama about these men’s fears of emasculation, represented in an unsubtle way over their attachment to guns and their fear that liberals, stereotyped as effeminate in their imagination, are coming to steal the guns away.

\

And, of course, in the Orlando situation, we have the added problem of homophobia, which is called a “phobia” for a reason, since it’s so often rooted in toxic masculinity and the terror of anything even remotely feminine.

What is particularly frustrating about all this is that, even though toxic masculinity is clearly the problem here, you have a bunch of conservatives running around and pushing toxic masculinity as the solution, as if all we need to end violence and terrorism is a bunch of silly posturing about who is the biggest man of all the menfolk out there.

Trump, of course, was leading the pack on this, posturing about how we need “toughness,” which he appears to define as a willingness to tweet ignorant, belligerent nonsense. Posturing a lot, in general, is the preferred strategy of the toxic masculinity crowd in response to terrorism. Lots of chatter about how Democrats refuse to say “radical Islam,” supposedly out of cowardice, and how the bravest and manliest of men will say it and the sheer force of the bravery demonstrated by the words they use will somehow be the magic ticket to ending the problem.

Friday, May 13, 2016

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

Statement on Federal Nondiscrimination Protections

by HHS
Press Release

Washington

RaeAnn Roca Pickett, Senior Director of Communications & Public Affairs Phone: 202 621 1409 Email:

raeann@latinainstitute.org

Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act prohibits discrimination and protects Latinxs

Washington, D.C. —The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released the final

regulation implementing Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which prohibits discrimination

on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in health care by certain covered

entities. The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) nondiscrimination provision is the first federal civil rights law

ever to broadly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in federally funded health programs.

Ann Marie Benitez, senior director of government relations for the National Latina Institute for

Reproductive Health (NLIRH), issued the following statement:

“We thank the Administration for issuing the final rule on ACA Section 1557 and believe it will contribute

to the health equity of our communities, promote equal access to healthcare for all, and increase

affordability and accessibility of coverage and care for all individuals. ACA Section 1557 is the first

federal civil rights law that has prohibited sex discrimination in healthcare and we thank the

Administration for taking this important step in ensuring access to quality health care for all by providing

necessary clarity on this essential provision. Thanks to the advocacy of many organizations, including

NLIRH, the final rule does not include a new religious exemption to its implementation.”

For more information on how NLIRH is working to protect, enroll and ensure access, visit us at

latinainstitute.org or on Facebook and Twitter @NLIRH.

###

The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health is the only national reproductive justice

organization dedicated to building Latina power to advance health, dignity, and justice for 28 million

Latinas, their families and communities in the United States through leadership development, community

mobilization, policy advocacy, and strategic communications.

JacksonKatz: Violence Against Women Is a

Men’s Issue

Jun 3, 2008, 7:00am T. M. Lindsey

Jackson Katz, an internationally recognized educator on violence prevention among men and

boys, asks why rape is a “women’s issue” when over 99 percent of rapes are perpetrated by men.

Jackson Katz argues society must first transform how it thinks about violence against women if it

wants to prevent these acts from reoccurring. “As a culture, Americans first must take the step in

acknowledging that violence against women is not a women’s issue, but a

men’s issue,” Katz said. Jackson Katz, Men Against Violence

“This is the foundation strategy for engaging young men and boys in

gender violence prevention,” Katz told an audience of school

counselors, social workers, teachers, University of Iowa psychology students, social

workers, and community members at a forum in Iowa in April. “The first problem I have with

labeling gender issues as women’s issues is that it gives men an excuse to not pay

attention. This is also the problem with calling them gender issues,

because the majority of the people in the status quo see gender issues

as women’s issues.”

Katz is an educator, author and filmmaker and has been long recognized

as one of America’s leading anti-sexist male activists, in particular

in the sports and military cultures. In 1993 he conceived and

co-founded the Mentors in Violence Prevention (MVP) Program at Northeastern University’s

Center for the Study of Sport in Society.

The multiracial, mixed-gender MVP program was the first large-scale

attempt to enlist high school, collegiate and professional athletes in

the fight against all forms of men’s violence against women. Today MVP

is the most widely utilized gender violence prevention program in

college and professional athletics.

https://rewirenewsgroup.com/author/t-m-lindsey/

Home

http://www.sportinsociety.org/vpd/mvp.php

http://www.sportinsociety.org/

https://search.creativecommons.org/?q=jackson+katz&sourceid=Mozilla-search

Drawing upon his most recent book, “The Macho Paradox: Why Some Men Hurt Women and

How All Can Help,” Katz shared some strategies with the

audience, providing them with what he hoped was a foundation they could

build upon in their professional and private lives. “My goal here today

is to give you some concrete strategies on how to approach issues

regarding violence against women and prevent gender-violence issues

among men and young boys.”

Katz spent a significant portion of the session driving home his first

strategy and why a paradigm shift in thinking is imperative to the

prevention of gender violence. At the root of the problem is language

and how, historically, language has helped cement and legitimize how

people view gender violence.

Katz used race and gender to illustrate how, over time, language has

helped perpetuate and maintain the dominant culture’s dominance. “In

the United States, when we hear the word `race,’ people generally think

of African Americans,” Katz said. “When people hear `sexual

orientation,’ they tend to think that means homosexual, gay, or

lesbian. When people hear `gender,’ they think of women.”

“In each, the dominate culture is left out of the equation. This is one

way that dominant systems maintain themselves in that they are rarely

challenged to think about their own dominance,” Katz said. “This is one

of the key characteristics of power and privilege and why the dominant

culture has ability to go unexamined and remain invisible.”

Katz admits this is one of the key challenges he faces when working

with men, the dominant group in our society. Katz reminds the audience

that his focus is on men. “I hope nobody in this room is under the

delusion that this is sexist,” Katz said. “I know women have made great

historical strides in recent history, but when we talk about the

dominant group in our society, we are talking about men. I’m also aware

that members of dominant groups have been strong supporters of

subordinate groups, but let’s not be naïve, for there have been members

of dominant groups who have resisted reform and responsibility.”

Another reason why Katz has a problem with people using women’s issues

to describe violence against women is the issue of perpetration and who

is responsible for perpetrating these acts. “Take rape for example,”

said Katz. “Over 99 percent of rape is perpetrated by men, but it’s a

women’s issue?”

Kats said one underlying problem is that college campuses tend to focus

on the prevention of rape and sexual violence. “But the term prevention

in not really prevention; rather, it’s risk reduction,” Katz said.

“These programs focus on how women can reduce their chances of being

sexually assaulted. I agree that women benefit from these education

programs, but let us not mistake this for prevention.”

“If a woman has done everything in her power to reduce her risk, then a

man who has the proclivity for abuse or need for power will just move

on to another woman or target,” Katz added. “It’s about the guy and his

need to assert his power. And it’s not just individual men, it’s a

cultural problem. Our culture is producing violent men, and violence

against women has become institutionalized. We need to take a step back

and examine the institutionalized polices drafted by men that

perpetuate the problem.”

The third problem Katz has with using the term women’s issues has to do

with how deeply personal these issues are in men’s lives. “It is

estimated that 18 million women, children, and men have been sexually

abused in the U.S.,” Katz said. “Think about all the men who love these

people and have been personally and profoundly affected by knowing that

their loved ones have been a victim of sexual violence. So don’t tell

me these are not men’s issues.”

Katz’s second strategy for addressing gender violence demands that we

hold male leaders accountable, since they have the transformative power

within the institution to make change happen. “I come from a social

justice perspective that if you are a member of the dominant group and

you don’t speak up in the face of others in your group when they are

abusive, your silence is a form of consent and complicity.”

Katz says the mainstream media should also be held accountable for its

silence in the realm of reporting on gender violence. “On the one-year

anniversary of the Virginia Tech massacre, the coverage of the event

was pathetic, not to mention the commentary was ridiculously

superficial,” Katz said. “There was not one mention of men,

masculinity, or violence in their coverage, yet all of these school

shootings have been perpetrated by young men. The first thing we should

be talking about is the gender of the perpetrators, not gun control,

school security, and the school’s responsibility.”

Moreover, Katz used Michael Moore’s documentary film, “Bowling for

Columbine,” to help support his point about the de-gendering of

violence perpetrated by men. “Moore’s documentary about the Columbine

shootings won several awards, including an Oscar for Best Documentary,”

Katz said. “He makes a two-hour film about gun violence; however, he

doesn’t once mention the single most important factor leading to the

shooting: gender.”

Katz points out a pattern that has evolved regarding how the media uses

passive voice and sentences when reporting gender violence. Using a

board in the front of the room, Katz helped make his point by providing

the audience with a concrete exercise to illustrate the power of

passive voice (see below).

John beat Mary. (active)

Mary was beaten by John. (passive)

Mary was beaten. (passive)

Mary was battered. (passive)

Mary is a battered woman. (active)

“John has left the conversation long ago, while Mary evolves into the

active victim,” Katz said. “This evolution of victim-blaming is very

pervasive in our society, because this is how our whole power structure

is set up. We start asking why Mary put herself into a position to be

beaten by John.”

“If we really want to work on prevention, we need to start asking

questions about John, not Mary,” Katz said. “We won’t get anything done

until we start treating these issues as men’s issues and shift the

paradigm at the cultural level.”

Intersectional Chapter, p. 1

Introduction

The fourth edition of this book emerges in the latter half of a decade of tumult with

respect to the issues represented in this section on sexism, heterosexism, and trans* oppression1.

Legal and political contestation regarding the civil rights of trans* people, the increased assault

on women’s bodies and the power to control them, the violence enacted toward queer folks in

nightclubs and public policy, and an overall retrenchment of masculinity and its concomitant

rigidly constructed gender role(s) all have rendered this new edition timely indeed. This is not to

say that these issues have been absent or less toxic in the last century of U.S. history and national

policy, but instead points out that in a period of presumed “post-race,” “post-gender,” and “post-

anything social justice”, our nation’s public discourse demonstrates that we are living in anything

but that.

In previous editions of this book the three major content areas within this section were

presented separately. In the late 1990s, during increased attention to identity politics,

distinguishing between sexism, heterosexism, and trans* oppression, this subdivision was

perhaps a reasonable way to organize the content since it mirrored the prevailing narratives

regarding sexism, lesbian, gay and bisexual (LBG) issues, and trans* issues. In the context of

this new updated edition, however, there is a far more complicated conversation (academic and

activist alike) about gender, sexuality, queerness, and the ways these lived experiences overlap.

As a result, the “siloing” of these areas of study and activism no longer works, and in fact would

actually undermine the liberatory ideas and progressive activism that this more complicated and

overlapping lens has fomented.

Having said that, however, we also choose to not collapse all three distinct forms of

oppression into a singular form because to do so ignores the histories of different social

movements that shaped them. Thus, we acknowledge the overlap and interconnection between

the social movements and simultaneously want their histories to be viewed in their own context

and in relation to other social movements. A combined section allows for a more specific focus

on the shared root power structures, the parallel ways these forms of oppression reinforce each

other, and the possibilities for deep social change when holding all three of these issues in a

connected way. Much like a prism that shows both the separate wavelengths of light and their

combined illuminating effect, this section offers readings that are both specific to each of these

three forms of identity and the corresponding oppression, and intersectional with respect to the

connections between these forms of oppression. As such, we ask that the reader hold these

individual pieces up to the light and observe the way each article speaks to the larger and more

profound dynamics in play.

Oppression directed against all women (sexism), LGB people (heterosexism), and trans*

people (trans* oppression) are both distinctive and interlocking because we all have multiple

identities that are salient at different times and for different reasons. What connects these forms

of oppression is the socially constructed and ruthlessly enforced binary systems of gender and

sexuality that divide people along strictly demarcated boundaries into either/or categories

(men/women, heterosexual/queer, gender normative/gender subversive) that are then used to

rigidly define societal norms. When these socially-constructed binary oppositions are then

connected to societal power, they serve to establish and maintain hierarchical borders of power

and oppression that privilege groups and individuals constructed as “dominant” while

1 We use trans* as a method of consistency with Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice (3rd edition). Although there are

conflicting opinions within and across trans* communities about the use of the asterisk, we use it to signal complexity and

variation of self and collective definitions, and draw attention to trans communities (Tompkins, 2014).

Intersectional Chapter, p. 2

marginalizing and disempowering groups and individuals constructed as “subordinate.” The

borders establish a polarity of exclusion in various degrees on one side and inclusion on the

other. This structure is established and enforced on the societal, institutional, and

individual/interpersonal levels (Bell, 2016; Hardiman & Jackson, 1997). The most extreme and

overt forms of oppression are directed against those who most challenge, confound, or contest

these binary frames established within societal norms in their presentation of self and in their

attempts to obliterate the very boundaries from which hierarchies of domination and

subordination stem.

What then is the complexity we are attempting to capture in this section? Gender is fluid,

sexuality is fluid, identities don’t matter when it comes to trying to “pin someone down,” and

identities deeply matter when it comes to framing the personal as political and in helping the

larger society shift in ways that are ever-more just and inclusive of the variation in the lived

human experience. For a long time the emphasis in the social justice literature addressing

sexuality was around seemingly separate L-G-B identities and the desire for political equality.

Emphases were placed on coming out, legal equality like marriage, options of whether to serve

in the military, and fair representation in the media, and those ideas were oftentimes viewed as

distinct from gender, race, (dis)ability, and other social identities. In this chapter we are offering

a view that requires us to consider how all of our social identities interact to influence how we

understand social justice. Our efforts in this section seek to avoid the trappings that have

hindered single identity movements for justice. Instead, we emphasize the overlap in lived

experiences for these three communities while capturing the incredible possibility for change

when working in coalition and solidarity.

Language

Language is complicated, imprecise, and implies conformity of experience (Catalano,

2017), since it is influenced by time, context, interpersonal dynamics, intention, and many other

variables. In an effort to develop a shared understanding of identities, we attempt to approach

terminology with as much contemporary accuracy as possible. At the same time, we

acknowledge that inevitably some of the terminology and definitions we use in this section may

be accepted by some people and contested by others. Also, what was “popular” or most often

used at the time of the first three editions, and even in this updated version, may seem obsolete or

inaccurate by the time of publication. As identity categories are unstable, forever changing,

evolving, and progressing, so too is the language defining these categories. Each person will

make different meanings and develop internal and external language to describe and define their

own multiple social identities. Defining oneself is an essential element of liberation, and thus

our offering of some shared language below is not meant to dismiss how each person views their

experience, but is simply meant to help readers of this section engage more fully with its

contents.

Heterosexism

Heterosexism is the institutionalization of a heterosexual norm or standard, which

establishes and perpetuates the notion that all people are or should be heterosexual, thereby

privileging heterosexuals and heterosexuality, and excluding the needs, concerns, cultures, and

life experiences of lesbians, gay males, bisexuals, pansexuals, asexuals, intersex, and trans*

people. Put simply, heterosexism is at times overt, and at times subtle, through mechanisms of

Intersectional Chapter, p. 3

neglect, omission, erasure, and distortion. Related concepts include heteronormativity (Warner,

1991) and compulsory heterosexuality (Rich, 1980), which establishes the normalization and

privileging of heterosexuality on the personal/interpersonal, institutional, and societal levels. An

example of heterosexism is how adults automatically expect that young people will enter a

heterosexual marriage at some future date, and that they will produce and rear children within

this union. Blumenfeld offers links between historical and contemporary linkages to the

persistance of heterorsexism.

Heterosexism also takes the form of pity, when the dominant group looks upon lesbian,

gay, bisexual, pansexual, asexual, intersex, and queer people as unfortunate human beings who

“can’t help being the way they are.” Heterosexism forces lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual,

asexual, intersex, and queer people to struggle constantly against their own invisibility, and

makes it much more difficult for them to integrate a positive sexual identity. Heterosexism’s

occasional subtlety, like all forms of oppression, makes it somehow even more harmful and

challenging because it is often harder to define and combat. The dynamics of heterosexism has

led to various iterations of language, such as the more commonly used language of queer. Queer

might seem unsettling to some, which is the precise reason for its use within gender and

sexuality social movements. The term queer is “a positionality that is not restricted to lesbians

and gay men but is in fact available to anyone who is or who feels marginalized because of her

or his sexual practices…” (Halperin, 1995, p. 62). The use of queer (as explored later in queer

theory) is to expand potentiality and resist constructions that align with normative categories

(Halperin, 1995).

Heterosexism’s more active and at times more visible component, called “homophobia,”

is oppression by intent, purpose, and design. Derived from the Greek terms homos, meaning

“same,” and phobikos, meaning “having a fear of and/or an aversion toward,” the word

“homophobia” was coined by George Weinberg (1972). Homophobia can be defined as the fear

and hatred of those who love and are attracted emotionally and sexually to those of the same sex.

Homophobia includes prejudice, discrimination, harassment, and acts of violence brought on by

that fear and hatred (Blumenfeld, 2013). Related concepts include “lesbophobia” or

“lesbiphobia,” which can be defined as the fear and hatred and discrimination and acts of

violence stemming from this fear and hatred against women who love women, “Biphobia,”

which is fear, hatred, and oppression directed against bisexuals: people who love and are

emotionally and sexually attracted to people of other sexes; and “Asexual Oppression” is

oppression against asexual people.

Increasingly the term “homophobia” is no longer used in preference to the use of

“heterosexism” as a more inclusive term by expanding its traditional definition. A “phobia” is

commonly known from psychology as an “irrational” or “unreasonable” fear. For example,

some people have irrational fears of insects (arachnophobia), or fear of open spaces, or being in

crowded public places like shopping malls (agoraphobia). On the other hand, some fears (and

forms of prejudice) are taught between individuals and within societies and cultures.

Homophobia falls within this later category. Rather than existing as “irrational” or

Intersectional Chapter, p. 4

“unreasonable” attitudes and behaviors per se, they exist within the realm of learned responses.

Therefore, for purposes of discussion throughout this book and in this section, though we

sometimes use the terms “homophobia” and “biphobia,” we are also employing the term

“heterosexism” in its expanded and more inclusive form.

Sexism

Said most simply, sexism is the use of structural, institutional, and cultural power by

cisgender men (and to a lesser degree trans* men) to deny resources to and extract resources

from cisgender women and trans* women for the sole benefit of men as a group. “Cisgender is

an adjective describing a person whose gender identity is congruent with their gender assigned at

birth” (Catalano & Griffin, 2016, p. 185). The resources in question can be material

(employment, housing, education, and legal) or non-material (safety, respect, voice and

representation), and participation in this system by men can be conscious or unconscious. And

while the action of sexism on individual and interpersonal levels is what tends to be most

discussed in mainstream media, for example, reduce systems of oppression to these levels leaves

the structural and institutional levels unexamined and therefore unchanged. One byproduct of

this overemphasis on individual and interpersonal levels is that it can “seem” like women have

made great strides because there is a woman astronaut or another who is a CEO, but when we

move back and take the picture in more fully, the incredible and long-standing systemic

disparities with respect to gender in the most important areas of power in this country can be

seen. For example, it is an important advancement that some cities finally have women as

mayors, but when we look at the representation of women in the U.S. Senate, we find that the

political system is still substantially skewed. In 2017 women comprised 21% of the U.S. Senate

and 19% of the US House of Representatives. Those suggesting that change takes time will need

to explain why we are approaching a full century of suffrage for women and this is as far as we

have gotten. Thus, when restricting the view of oppression on the individual or interpersonal

levels, the much more influential level of institutional and structural power is obscured and

society mistakenly thinks that women have come farther than they actually have.

The arc of sexism across the globe and in countless societies throughout history is long,

and thus the U.S. is not unique in its lack of full equality and equity for women. Importantly,

however, the U.S. emphatically claims to be a nation where everyone has a set of basic rights

that cannot be abrogated by any external force. As with People of Color and Native peoples

regarding racism and poor/working class communities with respect to classism, those

“inalienable” rights for women are constantly contested, diminished and undermined by systemic

and systematic sexism within every aspect of our society. Throughout the section various

articles (Lorber, Kimmel, Spade, and Serano) speak to the way gender is socially constructed,

making the difference between men and women seem inherent or at least deeply rooted and thus

immutable, thereby setting the stage for sexism to operate structurally and institutionally while

seeming “normal” and “just the way it is.” The action of the system based off of these gender

narratives can be seen in the ways women’s bodies are objectified (West), how women are

Intersectional Chapter, p. 5

assumed to be inferior (Solnit), and the multiple ways women’s lives are impacted by violence

(Katz). Terms that connect to sexism such as misogyny (the hatred of women and the feminine

form), patriarchy (the system of power controlled by men), and androcentrism (the placing of the

male experience at the center of discourse) can also be found throughout the section and at their

core refer to this overall system of male power, privilege, and supremacy that targets women

throughout U.S. society.

Trans* Oppression

For last 20 years or so, there have been a variety of terms used by and for trans* people,

as well as terms that predate popular culture and academic attention, for both self-determination

and administrative enforcement (Spade, 2011). The limitation of trying to pin down trans*

identity to a singular definition means that we have the unintended consequence of

oversimplifying trans*ness and assuming coherence where there may not be any (Catalano,

2017). Yet, in order for us to try to move forward together, we will attempt to provide a working

definition of trans* identity and ways to understand the impact of trans* oppression.

The range of potential gender identities mean there are a limitless number of iterations of

trans*ness for those who resist, reject, and reimagine their gender apart from the categories of

sex and gender assigned at birth (Feinberg, 1996; Stryker, 2008). As previously mentioned, we

use the language of cisgender instead of non-trans* to be affirming of trans* identities (Altman,

2014; Catalano & Griffin, 2016; Enke, 2012; Serano, 2009; Stryker, 2008). To elaborate,

“cisgender individuals are not necessarily gender-conforming in terms of their gender

expression” (Catalano & Griffin, 2016, p. 185). The confusion and conflation of gender, sex,

and sexuality, as previously mentioned within this introduction, makes us believe that sex

dictates gender and gender influences sexual, romantic, and intimate relationships. In reality,

however, these identities are independent variables and fluid within their own right, resulting in a

complex lived reality that cannot be contained by simple classifications.

Trans* oppression is most easily understood as the marginalization and exclusion for

those who do not identify within the category of man or woman; trans*ness in this sense is

rejection of the expectation that there are only men who are biologically male and express

masculinity and there are only women who are biologically women and express femininity

(Bornstein, 1994). Through the lens of the oppressive structure, anyone who transgresses the

boundaries of gender, sex, and gender expression is in some way doing their gender wrong

(Butler, 1990; West & Zimmerman, 1987; Westbrook & Schilt, 2014). Trans* people

experience threats and acts of violence as fueled by the conscious and unconscious fear of those

who disrupt gender norms, which is a price too high for anyone to pay to live their authentic

lives2.

Violence experienced by trans* people are not as simple as individual, but rather as a

2 According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, “Transgender people face extraordinary levels of physical and
sexual violence, whether on the streets, at school or work, at home, or at the hands of government officials. More than one in

four trans people has faced a bias-driven assault, and rates are higher for trans women and trans people of color”

(http://www.transequality.org/issues/anti-violence).

http://www.transequality.org/issues/anti-violence

Intersectional Chapter, p. 6

systemic and institutionally-supported view that trans*ness is “something” to be eradicated. As a

result of pervasive violence against trans* people, activists have created International Trans Day

of Remembrance (https://tdor.info/), and Chestnut explores and complicates how Trans Day of

Remembrance should encapsulate an intersectional focus on the disproportional violence

impacting trans* women of color. Further, Ware provides insights into how queer, trans*, and

gender non-conforming youth intersect with age, race, and the juvenile justice system.

Misrecognition is a constant psychological stress for those who are misgendered based on

how they look, how they are perceived, and the limitations of how they can identify (Snorton,

2009). Even those trans* people who biomedically transition using various hormonal, surgical,

and social methods to align with more “recognizable” gender norms carry a history of their

gendered pasts through such things such as financial documents, and medical records. While

some trans* people go “stealth” (making their transness as invisible as possible for safety), some

trans* people openly refuse to disregard, hide, or reject the complexity of their gendered past for

others’ comfort. In Spade and Serano, each offer their experiences with navigating various

forms of trans* oppression, and Schulman offers insights into the experience of trans*

collegians. Of course, coalition building is integral to understanding how social justice moves

forward. Chess, Kafer, Quizar, and Richardson demonstrate how gender-inclusive restrooms are

something that is of benefit to everyone.

Theoretical & Conceptual Framework

Today, the reality of gender and sexuality is that none of the previously used frameworks

are enough, not just with respect to inclusivity, but especially in terms of what liberation and

justice for all axes of identity look and feel like. In attempting to explain this larger, liberatory

view, and thus the contours of this section, we want to introduce a few key conceptual

organizers: Critical Trans* Politics (CTP), Queer Theory, Intersectionality, and Feminisms. We

introduce these conceptual and theoretical frameworks as a way to consider the complexities of

genders and sexualities, and to situate the readings that follow. We start with CTP as a means of

entry into queer theory, discuss the potentiality of intersectionality, and conclude with

feminisms.

Critical Trans Politics

In the past few years, we have seen an increase in national media attention on the lives

and experiences of some trans* people. Popular culture has seen trans* visibility through the

work of writer, television hosts, and advocate Janet Mock, activist and actress Laverne Cox, and

former professional athlete and reality television star Caitlyn Jenner. Mock’s book, Redefining

realness (2014) debuted on the New York Times bestseller list. Cox has been featured on the

cover of Time magazine (Steimetz, 2014) and is one of the stars on the Netflix show Orange is

the New Black. Cox has been an outspoken LGBT advocate and did a public interview with bell

hooks about intersectionality and feminism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oMmZIJijgY).

Jenner’s reality television show (I am Cait) brought up some difficult questions about sports,

celebrity, and conservative politics. At the same time, we have seen increased political backlash

through state legislation called “trans bathroom bills” that seek to limit and prevent trans* people

https://tdor.info/

Intersectional Chapter, p. 7

from accessing public restrooms through the false guise of “protecting” young people and

women by labeling trans* people as “sexual predators.” There has also been an increased

awareness in the number of trans* people murdered through media outlets such as The Advocate,

LGBTQ Nation, and the Huffington Post. In effect, the public discourse around trans* identities

has been about pronouns, transition related surgeries, restroom access, and murders. None of

which we would characterize as liberatory.

Now, to be sure, the current public attention on trans* lives does not acknowledge the

long histories of trans* communities. Trans* people have existed throughout histories (Feinberg,

1996; Stryker, 2008). For example, Stryker’s chapter recounts the history of the Compton’s

Cafeteria Riot of 1966, which is still relatively unknown, and historically situates trans* people

as part of intersectional social justice movements. The invisibility of trans* histories is also

addressed in this volume through Meyerowit offers historical roots of trans* oppression through

medical discourse. It is not surprising that histories of trans* lives are invisible when shadowed

by dominant narratives of cisgender conformity and expectations that trans* people’s needs are

aligned with LGB needs. Yet, trans* people have repeatedly been cast aside by LGB political

organizations because they are not politically viable to the current rights agenda (see ENDA,

initial repeal efforts of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and other examples) (Spade, 2011). Often the

refrain has been, “We’ll come back for you,” but that time never comes because the political

climate makes trans* inclusion too difficult and complex. In fact, Critical Trans Politics (CTP)

seeks a “transformation that is more than symbolic and that reaches those facing the most violent

manifestations of transphobia, we must move beyond the politics of recognition and inclusion”

(Spade, 2011, p. 28).

CTP specifically offers ways to explore ideas of solidarity as a form of dismantling and

resisting oppression. We assert that it is imperative to examine how sex, gender, and sexuality

manifest (and get reproduced) through oppression, which are best understood in relationship to

each other (Catalano & Griffin, 2016). “Power is not a matter of one dominant individual or

institution, but instead manifests in interconnected, contradictory sites where regimes of

knowledge and practice circulate and take hold” (Spade, 2011, p. 22). Spade (2011) shapes CTP

as a way to consider the limits of the law and instead consider the impact of how administrative

norms (bureaucracy and regulations) are purportedly neutral, but actually reinforce normativity.

“Law reform tactics can have a role in mobilization-focused strategies, but law reform must

never constitute the sole demand of trans politics” (p. 28). CTP offers (and demands) an

examination of inclusion; Spade argues inclusion only serves to force the most vulnerable into

the normative boundaries already determined by institutions like marriage and family.

Spade’s suggestion is to do social justice work focused on the most vulnerable, “centering

the belief that social justice trickles up, not down” (p. 23). Further, Spade (2011) names how the

legal processes of inclusion (hate crime legislation and employment anti-discrimination laws) are

flawed and failed attempts for equality. Instead, these legal methods only force

trans populations to claim and embrace a kind of recognition that not only fails to offer

respite from the brutalities of poverty and criminalization, but also threatens to reduce our

struggle to another justification for and site of expansion of the structures that produce

the very conditions that shorten our lives. (Spade, 2011, p. 223)

As with all forms of oppression, looking in isolation at the interpersonal, institutional, or cultural

manifestations or a singular identity manifestation will only replicate oppression (Bell, 2016).

Queer Theory

Intersectional Chapter, p. 8

Within academic and activist areas, a greater emphasis and discussion is centered on what

has come to be called “queer studies” and an area of critical theory called “queer theory.” As a

theoretical approach, “queer” there encourages an analysis that challenges current notions and

categorizations of what is considered as repressive binary frames of sexuality and gender

constructions. At the heart of queer theory is the principle that “identities” are neither fixed nor

inflexible, and they are not biologically determined, but that instead identities are socially

determined. Queer theorists have insisted that identities comprise many and varied components,

and that it is inaccurate and misleading to collectively categorize people on the basis of one

single element (for example, as “lesbian,” “gay,” “bisexual,” “heterosexual,” or as “woman,”

“man,” and others).

According to author and theorist David Halperin (1995):

Queer is by definition whatever is at odds with the normal, the legitimate, the dominant.

There is nothing in particular to which it necessarily refers. It is an identity without an

essence. “Queer” then, demarcates not a positivity but a positionality vis-à-vis the

normative. (p. 62, original emphasis)

The resistance to alignment with normativity means that queerness is potentially for

transgressive and liminal spaces, places, and subjectivities.

Monique Wittig (1980), for example, asserted that the terms “woman” and “man”

constituted political rather than eternal or essentialized categories. Preeminent scholar and social

theorist Judith Butler (1990) addressed what she refers to as the “performativety of gender” in

which “gender” is basically an involuntary reiteration or reenactment of established norms of

expression, an act that one performs as an actor performs a script that was created before the

actor ever took the stage. The continued transmission of gender requires actors to play their

roles so that they become actualized and reproduced in the guise of reality, and in the guise of

the “natural” and the “normal.”

The act that one does, the act that one performs, is, in a sense, an act that has been going

on before one arrived on the scene. Hence, gender is an act, which has been rehearsed,

much as a script survives the particular actors who make use of it, but which requires

individual actors in order to be actualized and reproduced as reality once again. (Butler,

1990. p. 272)

“Gender,” therefore, is a taught and learned response, and sustained in the service of

maintaining positions of domination and subordination. Not only are the categorical binary

frames man/woman, heterosexual/homosexual and bisexual, and gender conforming/gender non-

conforming inaccurate, but they also leave no space for those who do not fit within these neat

and oppositional categories. For example, “intersex3 is a general term used for a variety of

factors in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t seem to fit

3 Though many experts estimate the number of intersex people at between 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 births, since there are many
factors in defining who may be considered intersex, no precise estimate can be determined (Intersex Society of North America:

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency)

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Intersectional Chapter, p. 9

the typical definitions of female or male” (Intersex Society of North America). The binary

frames make their existence rendered invisible, even an impossibility. Similarly, trans* people

resist, reject, and often confound gender norms and sex categories, and thus they experience

violence, marginalization, and other manifestations of oppression as a result of measures to

maintain the dominance of cisgender and normative notions of gender (gender normativity).

In the case of gender, the binary imperatives actually lock all people into rigid gender-

based roles that inhibit creativity and self-expression, and therefore, we all have a vested interest

in challenging and eventually obliterating the binaries. The existence of dominance aligns with

patriarchy (male dominance), heterosexual privilege, and gender normativity. Within a

patriarchal system of male domination, some cisgender heterosexual male bodies matter more,

while “othered” bodies matter less. These “othered” bodies (including female, trans*, and

intersex bodies) violate the “rules” for the assumed reproduction and maintenance of the

dominant patriarchal system. Of course, in this system, people with disabilities, people of color,

and other identities are also deemed as “other” to be misaligned with normativity aimed to serve

patriarchy.

Butler (1993) reminds us that the term “abjection” is taken from the Latin, ab-jicere,

meaning to cast off, away, or out. On a social level, abjection signifies someone who is

degraded, stigmatized, or cast out. Butler states that “we regularly punish those who fail to do

their gender right,” and similarly punish those who fail to do their “race” right. Doing one’s

“race” right often depends on doing one’s socioeconomic class right. The regulatory regimes and

categories of “sex,” “sexuality,” “gender,” “ability,” “race,” and “class” are connected, and these

connections are maintained by systems of oppression.

Intersectionality

A third key area of the theoretical framework informing this section is what is called

“intersectionality.” The term is most often attributed to Dr. Kimberle Crenshaw’s (1991) article,

but it is likely that Dr. Crenshaw’s articulation represented a formalizing of what was a long-

standing understanding in feminist, queer, and communities of color. Audre Lorde (1984)

regularly spoke to the ways that both the impacts of systems of oppression cross over each other

and often compound their effects on the lives of individuals and groups, as well as the shared

roots of systems of oppression and how they serve to reinforce each other at a core level.

Examples include the intensified oppression of trans* women of color versus White trans*

women (Kacere), or how abortion and family planning resources are accessed more by women of

color than White women of all economic backgrounds (Sherman, 2016).

Focusing on the dynamics of three forms of oppression can add complexity to the work

of reading and teaching this section, it also better prepares those engaging with this section how

these issues play out in the “real world.” No one is merely their gender or their sexuality.

Rather, these identities and their concomitant dynamics are constantly in play, and thus an

intersectional approach helps ground the reader’s experience in a “lived” manner, effectively

speaking an even deeper truth to power and offering a more sophisticated pathway to liberation

and social justice.

Our theoretical framework allows us to consider how sexism, heterosexism, and trans*

oppression interlock and support each other. The necessity of utilizing intersectionality as a

Intersectional Chapter, p. 10

theoretical framework is because it

reflects an ongoing intellectual and social justice mission that seeks to (1) reformulate the

world of ideas so that it incorporates the many contradictory and overlapping ways that

human life is experienced; (2) convey this knowledge by rethinking curricula and

promoting institutional change in higher education institutions; (3) apply the knowledge

in an effort to create a society in which all voices are heard; and (4) advocate for public

policies that are responsive to multiple voices. (Dill & Zambrana, 2009, p. 2)

Our section utilizes this framework to highlight how all forms of oppression support the

existence of each other, do not manifest in the same way for people of similar identities (context

matters), and marginalized identities disrupt the “naturalizing” assumptions of “normal” (Bell,

2016; Crenshaw, 1995; Johnson, 2006; Young, 1990).

The framework of intersectionality attends to identity while not focusing on the

individual (Collins, 2009). Our aim of utilizing intersectionality is to allow for a more complex

and nuanced understanding of how systems of oppression operate, moving beyond the individual

focus. “Intersectionality attends to identity by placing it within a macro-level analysis that ties

individual experience to a person’s membership in social groups, during a particular social and

historical period, and within larger, interlocking systems of advantage and access”

(Wijeyesinghe & Jones, 2014, p. 11). In this way, we can utilize a metaphor of an array of

mirrors as a way to communicate the complexity of intersectionality and multiple identities.

Imagine an octagonal room (8-sides) and each wall is covered by a mirror. If you were to

stand in the center of the room, then you would have 8 images of the singular self; realistically

speaking, if you had sight, you would need to choose which mirrors to face since there is a

practical limit of how many images you can face at a time (one to three, depending on the size of

the room). If each mirror represents one of our social identities, then you would be examining

either a singular identity or a few identities. At the same time, you would also be able to see

other images of yourself that show up “behind” the image in front of you, which are images

projected from the mirrors that surround you. For us, this is a way to think about an individual’s

multiple identities, since conceptually it is difficult to simultaneously think of them all at any

given time. The mirror we face represents a salience of identity, and our experience of salience

might be related to various dynamics such as context, time, and location.

Our image is how we might understand ourselves as an individual, which is shaped by

how we were taught to view ourselves. The mirror metaphor is more complex than an individual

understanding of identity. The construct of a mirror is a way to recognize how the culture

influences how we understand and shape the images we make of ourselves, and the walls are the

institutions that support those images.

“Intersectionality frames all identities as being mutually constituted, meaning that social

identities are not discrete entities that are isolated from the influences of all others”

(Wijeyesinghe & Jones, 2014, p. 15). In this way, the constructions of our social identities are

shaped by the presences of each other’s in how we are constituted by culture, time, history, and

context. Our efforts toward liberation are not singular social movements, and our aim is to open

up the possibilities of locating the role of systems that influence our inability to move towards

social justice.

The work of intersectionality reminds us that it “becomes less about locating oneself

within an intersectional framework and more so about using intersectionality to understand the

experiences of others and the social structures that perpetuate privilege and oppression”

(Wijeyesinghe & Jones, 2014, p. 16-17). Thus, its values in using intersectionality in the

Intersectional Chapter, p. 11

formation of this section are threefold. First, it avoids oppression olympics that so often arise

from a siloed approach to social justice work. Too often we end up in interpersonal dynamics of

oppression in the attempt to determine “who has it worse,” especially when it came to getting

access to sparse resources. Second, intersectionality connects this section more effectively to the

other sections of this book. We are able to understand how existence and maintenance of sexism

serves to support the existence of racism and classism, for example, when we assume that it was

“liberating” for women to have the opportunity to work when women of color and poor women

of all races had always needed to work to survive. Third, intersectionality sets right long-

standing histories where the lack of intersectionality wrought incredible harm on already

marginalized populations.

Intersectionality allows the reader to see more easily the connections of this section to

other sections, and thereby gain an even better sense of what is happening in our entire society.

Knowing parts of the whole is helpful, but seeing how all those parts fit together to make the

whole what it is, is the only way that we can collectively and substantially achieve social justice.

As such, the connections between sexual oppression, gender oppression, and racial oppression,

economic oppression, ableism, and the other sections in this book should be clearer in this

edition of the book than any other. The emphasis on intersectionality with respect to the three

areas addressed in this section serves as amends for all the failings of movements (i.e. the first

two waves of the “women’s movement” with respect to women of color), the narrow views of

theorists (i.e. trans* academic theory being largely White in its early iterations and somewhat

disconnected from activist and everyday roots in the ivory towers), and the biased leadership

around specific issues (e.g., the fact that “marriage” was largely a political imperative for

professional middle class queer folks and had little relevance to those who are poor and working

class).

It is deeply false to act as if intersectionality is a “new” theory. Instead it needs to be

framed as an “it’s about time” move in the field and in this section. In this end, however, the

greatest power of intersectionality is in its capacity to envision a very new world – a world in

which folks are liberated along all lines of identity and where systems of oppression and

privilege do not thwart the best of our human capacity. We hope the reader will see that

liberatory horizon in the intersectional voices in this section and follow their leadership as we

collectively organize for social justice.

Feminisms

The implications of the above intersectional framing can be seen quite powerfully when

considering what the term “feminism” means and what the “feminist” movement is and has been

in the U.S. for over 150 years. The readings by Angela Davis and bell hooks speak clearly to a

complicated, multi-identity understanding of feminism that maximizes its liberatory potential.

Unfortunately, and much to its own detriment, feminism has not always been framed in a

complex and varied manner. In order to get the clearest sense of why this is so, and therefore

why not all women and trans* folks align with mainstream feminism; an exploration of the

history of U.S. feminist movements is necessary.

The first “wave” of feminism began in the first third of the 19th century, culminating at

its best at the Seneca Falls Women’s Convention in Seneca Falls, NY. We say “at its best”

because the platform at that convention had an intersectional focus (issues of race and class were

included) and spoke to the needs of many different women. In the 72 years between that

Intersectional Chapter, p. 12

convention and the passage of the 19th amendment, however, the movement succumbed to

external forces. For example, White southern support of suffrage existed so long as racist and

supremacist racial lines were upheld. As a result, suffrage movements abandoned its

commitment to racial justice and economic justice for all women, resulting in the 19th

amendment providing the vote for White women, but not women of color. While gradualists

said this was a victory toward more global women’s rights, those who were yet again relegated

to the margins found the 19th amendment a reinforcement of the ravages of racism and white

supremacy in the U.S.

Forty-three years later, Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique (1963), and the

second wave of the women’s movement took concrete form, albeit again along privileged lines

of race and class and, therefore, largely serving women who were White, middle class, and

heterosexual. Trying to take this movement mainstream, thereby pulling in a broader base,

“Feminism is the radical notion that women are people” and other such pithy slogans emerged as

the public face of the movement in the 1960s and ‘70s. A radical, engaged, and vocal faction of

this movement including women of color, lesbians, and poor women could not as easily be

eclipsed this time around, and despite itself, this movement served to advance a broader and

more powerful agenda regarding the inherent rights of all women than did the first wave. And

still, the seduction of privilege and power left the mainstream movement as one that largely

served middle-class white women. In similar fashion, more recent liberal feminism has

brandwashed the notion of women “leaning in” rather than changing the systems of White

supremacist heteropatriartchy (hooks, 2015; Smith, 2016) in the corporate sphere and elsewhere.

Out of the tension and resistance to mainstream ideas of feminism, more specific forms of

feminism such as Black and Women of Color, radical, lesbian-separatist, eco-, and Marxist, just

to name a few, have arisen. None of these have occupied the center with respect to feminist

organizing or even feminism in the academy, but their contributions have been and continue to

be critical to the process of de-centering privileged identities within feminism and pushing for

greater inclusion and deeper analysis.

Learning from history can be painful and fruitful all at once. Starting in the 1990s and

leading to today, a more complicated, inclusive and therefore challenging “third wave” of

feminism has emerged with demands that are at once reaching across identity spectra, focused on

systems change, and speaking deep truth to the harm that socially-constructed gender roles do in

our society. This third wave is largely led by women of color, focuses on intersectionality, and

has strong ties to grassroots activism. Rinku Sen’s piece in this section is an example of the

nature of this third wave feminism and the challenges of organizing it, while also positing the

hope that lies within it for coalition building with trans* activists, with advocates for economic

justice, with climate justice and environmental activists, and with those who seek racial justice in

this country. Organizers and leaders like Winona Laduke, and the late Wangari Maathai do not

see feminism as separate from other social justice issues, but rather as a tapestry wherein all the

challenges of our lives can be woven in, seen, understood, and strengthened by our shared human

bonds. As such, contemporary feminism is deeper than just the radical notion that women are

people; it is the even more radical notion that oppression is anathema to our humanity, and that it

is deeply possible, perhaps even probable, that human society can and will live without

oppression and thrive in a shared commitment to freedom.

Conclusion

The readings we have selected for the fourth edition are largely U.S. focused in legal,

Intersectional Chapter, p. 13

ideological, and geographical contexts, and we openly acknowledge that our U.S.-centric

selections are a limitation. This drawback might be quite apparent given that we live in an

increasingly global community where the issues covered in this section vary greatly as evidenced

by the fact that norms, values, laws, policies, and other factors vary significantly by country and

even by region within the same country. In some countries around the world, people have fought

long and difficult battles to win rights to marriage, to employment access and security, to live

where they choose and can afford, to inherit property, to define and choose family, to access

affordable healthcare, to serve in the military, to conceive, adopt, and raise children, to

experience a workplace free of sexual harassment, to attend school with measures put in place to

limit bullying and rape culture, and many other benefits those with various forms of gender and

sexual privilege take for granted. In an effort to provide a more global perspective, we offer

Gessen’s analysis of the conditions for LGBTQ people in the Russian Federation.

We hope this intersectional section, along with this entire book, can counter historical

and contemporary troubling realities and serve as a lamp on the path to substantive and

intersectional social change. We invite you to view the readings in this section with curiosity

and a willingness to approach the complicated and compelling content herein. The complicated

nature of the interplay between trans* oppression, sexism, and heterosexism cannot possibly be

captured in a section of this size given that entire university departments are individually devoted

to each area. Therefore, this introduction and the readings in this section are designed to offer an

initial framework that can serve as an effective template for understanding and for taking action.

As mentioned above, all three of these overlapping and still distinct communities are under fire,

and thus we hope this section does more than heighten analysis. Our efforts here are meant to

inspire ongoing, substantial, and sustainable action. As Jamie Utt shares in his piece, everyone’s

liberation is bound up in everyone else’s. Therefore, we believe it is in the best interests of all

marginalized communities to take action and dismantle these systems of oppression so we move

into a future of possibilities, change, and hope.

Intersectional Chapter, p. 14

Works Cited

Altman, D. (1973). Homosexual: Oppression and liberation. New York: Avon.

Bell, L. A. (2016). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams and

L. A. Bell (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (3rd edition, pp. 3-26). New

York, NY:

Routledge.

Blumenfeld, W. J. (2013). Introduction: Heterosexism. In M. Adams, W. J. Blumenfeld, C.

Castaneda, H. W. Hackman, M. L. Peters, X. Zuniga, Readings for diversity and social

justice, (3rd Edition, pp. 373-379). New York: Routledge.

Bornstein, K. (1994). Gender outlaw: On men, women, and the rest of us. New York: First

Vintage Books.

Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of sex. NY: Routledge.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. NY: Routledge.

Catalano, D. C. J. (2017). Resistence coherence: Trans men’s experiences and the use of

grounded theory methods, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,

30(3), pp. 234-244.

Catalano, D. C. J. & Griffin, P. (2016). Sexism, heterosexism, and trans* oppression: An

integrated perspective. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, D. J. Goodman, & K. Y. Joshi (Eds.),

Teaching for diversity and social justice, 3rd edition (pp. 183-211). New York:

Routledge.

Collins, P. H. (2009). Foreword: Emerging intersections – Building knowledge and transforming

institutions. In B. T. Dill & R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Emerging intersections: Race, class,

and gender in theory, policy, and practice (pp. vii-xiii). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers

University Press.

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence

against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241-1299.

Crenshaw, K. W. (1995). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in

anti-discrimination law. In K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, & K. Thomas (Eds.),

Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement, pp. 103-122. New

York, NY: The New Press.

Dill, B. T & Zambrana, R. E. (2009). Critical thinking about inequality: An emerging lens. In B.

T. Dill & R. E. Zambrana (Eds.), Emerging intersections: Race, class, and gender in

theory, policy, and practice (pp. 1-21). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Intersectional Chapter, p. 15

Enke, A. F. (2012). The education of little cis: Cisgender and the discipline of opposing bodies.

In A. F. Enke (Ed.), Transfeminist perspectives in and beyond transgender and gender

studies (pp. 60-77). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Feinberg, L. (1996). Transgender warriors: Making history from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman.

Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

Friedan, B. (1963). The feminine mystique. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Halperin, D. (1995). Saint Foucault: Towards a gay hagiography, New York: Oxford University

Press.

Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. W. (1997). Conceptual foundations for social justice courses. In M.

Adams, L. Bell & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice: A

Sourcebook (pp. 16-29). New York, NY: Routledge.

hooks, b. (2015). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. New York: Routledge.

Intersex Society of North America, (n.d.) How common is intersex?

http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency

Johnson, A. (2006). Privilege, power and difference. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Berkeley, CA: Crossings Press.

Mock, J. (2014). Redefining Realness: My Path to Womanhood, Identity, Love & So Much More.

New York: Atria.

National Center for Transgender Equality (2017). Anti-Violence.

http://www.transequality.org/issues/anti-violence

Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. London: Onlywomen Press.

Serano, J. (2009). Whipping girl: A transsexual woman on sexism and the scapegoating of

femininity. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

Sherman, R. B. (2016). What the War on Reproductive Rights Has to do With Poverty and

Race. Yes! Magazine. Retrieved from: http://www.yesmagazine.org/peace-justice/what-

the-war-on-reproductive-rights-has-to-do-with-poverty-and-race-20160525

Smith, A. (2016). Heteropatriarchy and the 3 pillars of White supremacy: Rethinking women of

color organizing. In INCITE! Women of Color Organizing (Eds.), The color of violence:

http://www.transequality.org/issues/anti-violence

Intersectional Chapter, p. 16

The INCITE! anthology (pp. 66-73). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Snorton, C. R. (2009). “A new hope”: The psychic life of passing, Hypathia, 24(3), pp. 77-92.

Spade, D. (2011). Normal life: Administrative violence, critical trans politics, and the limits of

the law. Brooklyn, NY: South End Press.

Steimetz, K. (2014, June 9). The transgender tipping point: America’s next civil rights frontier.

Time, 22(183), pp. 38-46.

Stryker, S. (2008). Transgender history. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

Tomkins, A. (2014). Asterisk. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1/2), pp. 26-27.

Warner, M. (1991). Fear of a queer planet. Social Text, 29, pp. 3-17.

Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

West, C. & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Doing gender, Gender & Society, 1, pp. 125-151.

Westbrook, L. & Schilt, K. (2014). Doing gender, determining gender: Transgender people,

gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system, Gender &

Society, 28(1), pp. 32-57.

Wijeyesinghe, C. L. & Jones, S. R. (2014). Intersectionality, identity, and systems of power and

inequality. In D. M. Miller (Ed.), Intersectionality and higher education: Theory,

research, and praxis (pp. 9-19). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Wittig, M. (1980). “On ne naît pas femme” [One is not born a woman]. Questions Féministes.

Nouvelles Questions Féministes & Questions Feministes, 8, pp. 75–84.

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

HeWorks, She Works, But What Different Impressions

They Make

Occupational sexism is any discriminatory happenings that take place within the work place.

Often referred to as double standards. Males are held to “this” standard. But if you are female,

you are held to this (often stricter) standard. These “typical office double standards,” Kirk and

Okazawa-Rey (373) shed light on how very unfair women and men are treating within workplace

walls.

A man displaying his family photo on his desk characterizing him as a loyal, stand-up, family

man. When a woman displays a family photo it is seen as her prioritizing her family above her

career. (373) I agree that women face these challenges, I myself have personally. I do think He

Works, She Works,But What Different Impressions They Make shares valuable insight to how

different assumptions and impressions are made regarding one’s sex. What jobs we take, what

promotions we may achieve, what our pay is, to how our actions and emotions are interpreted are

interdependent on our sex within this patriarchal society.

The Wikipedia Article, Occupational Sexism talk more on the discriminations working women

face. A knowledge gap within this article is referencing the patriarchal society we live and

participate in. I also think referencing He Works, She Works, But What Different Impressions

They Make could help elevate the Wikipedia article by providing readers information of the

double standards working women face.

Making this change within the Wikipedia article would combat not only occupational sexism,

gender discrimination, and patriarchy. The two former stem from the latter. To tackle it from the

root cause instead of simply trimming back the unsightly overgrowth would produce an equitable

bouquet for all the enjoy. To bring down the patriarchy would assist greatly to bring down other

systems of oppression.

Kirk, Gywn, and Margo Okazowa-Rey. “He Works, She Works, But What Different Impressions

They Make.” Readings for Diversity and Social Justice, by Maurianne Adams, Routledge, 2018,

pp. 373–374.

“Occupational Sexism.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 13 Oct. 2019,

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_sexism.

59

6    Masculinity as Homophobia
Fear, Shame, and Silence in the

Construction of Gender Identity

Michael S. Kimmel

We think of manhood as eternal, a timeless essence that resides deep in the heart
of every man. We think of manhood as a thing, a quality that one either has or
doesn’t have. We think of manhood as innate, residing in the particular biological
composition of the human male, the result of androgens or the possession of a penis.
We think of manhood as a transcendent tangible property that each man must mani-
fest in the world, the reward presented with great ceremony to a young novice by his
elders for having successfully completed an arduous initiation ritual. . . .

In this chapter, I view masculinity as a constantly changing collection of meanings
that we construct through our relationships with ourselves, with each other, and with
our world. Manhood is neither static nor timeless; it is historical. Manhood is not
the manifestation of an inner essence; it is socially constructed. Manhood does not
bubble up to consciousness from our biological makeup; it is created in culture. Man-
hood means different things at different times to different people. We come to know
what it means to be a man in our culture by setting our definitions in opposition to
a set of “others”—racial minorities, sexual minorities, and, above all, women. . . .

Classical Social Theory as a
Hidden Meditation of Manhood

Begin this inquiry by looking at four passages from that set of texts commonly called
classical social and political theory. You will, no doubt, recognize them, but I invite
you to recall the way they were discussed in your undergraduate or graduate courses
in theory:

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of
production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole re-
lations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form,
was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes.
Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social condi-
tions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all
earlier ones. All fixed, fast- frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable

Republished with permission of Sage Publications, Inc., from Theorizing Masculinities, Harry Brod and
Michael Kaufman, eds., Men’s Studies Association (U.S.), pp. 119–141. Copyright © 1994; permission
conveyed through Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. I am grateful to Tim Beneke, Harry Brod, Michael
Kaufman, Iona Mara-Drita, and Lillian Rubin for comments on earlier versions of the chapter.

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 59 2/22/16 11:34 AM

60 PART I The Social Construction of Difference: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality

prejudices and opinions are swept away, all new- formed ones become antiquated be-
fore they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man
is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relation
with his kind. (Marx & Engels, 1848/1964)

An American will build a house in which to pass his old age and sell it before the roof
is on; he will plant a garden and rent it just as the trees are coming into bearing; he will
clear a field and leave others to reap the harvest; he will take up a profession and leave
it, settle in one place and soon go off elsewhere with his changing desires. . . . At first
sight there is something astonishing in this spectacle of so many lucky men restless in
the midst of abundance. But it is a spectacle as old as the world; all that is new is to
see a whole people performing in it. (Tocqueville, 1835/1967)

Where the fulfillment of the calling cannot directly be related to the highest spiritual
and cultural values, or when, on the other hand, it need not be felt simply as economic
compulsion, the individual generally abandons the attempt to justify it at all. In the
field of its highest development, in the United States, the pursuit of wealth, stripped
of its religious and ethical meaning, tends to become associated with purely mundane
passions, which often actually give it the character of sport. (Weber, 1905/1966)

We are warned by a proverb against serving two masters at the same time. The poor
ego has things even worse: it serves three severe masters and does what it can to bring
their claims and demands into harmony with one another. These claims are always di-
vergent and often seem incompatible. No wonder that the ego so often fails in its task.
Its three tyrannical masters are the external world, the super ego and the id. . . . It feels
hemmed in on three sides, threatened by three kinds of danger, to which, if it is hard
pressed, it reacts by generating anxiety. . . . Thus the ego, driven by the id, confined
by the super ego, repulsed by reality, struggles to master its economic task of bringing
about harmony among the forces and influences working in and upon it; and we can
understand how it is that so often we cannot suppress a cry: “Life is not easy!” (Freud,
“The Dissection of the Psychical Personality,” 1933/1966)

If your social science training was anything like mine, these were offered as de-
scriptions of the bourgeoisie under capitalism, of individuals in democratic societies,
of the fate of the Protestant work ethic under the ever rationalizing spirit of capital-
ism, or of the arduous task of the autonomous ego in psychological development.
Did anyone ever mention that in all four cases the theorists were describing men?
Not just “man” as in generic mankind, but a particular type of masculinity, a defini-
tion of manhood that derives its identity from participation in the marketplace, from
interaction with other men in that marketplace— in short, a model of masculinity for
whom identity is based on homosocial competition? Three years before Tocqueville
found Americans “restless in the midst of abundance,” Senator Henry Clay had called
the United States “a nation of self- made men.”

What does it mean to be “ self- made”? What are the consequences of self- making
for the individual man, for other men, for women? It is this notion of manhood—
rooted in the sphere of production, the public arena, a masculinity grounded not in
land ownership or in artisanal republican virtue but in successful participation in
marketplace competition— this has been the defining notion of American manhood.

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 60 2/22/16 11:34 AM

6 Kimmel / Masculinity as Homophobia 61

Masculinity must be proved, and no sooner is it proved than it is again questioned
and must be proved again— constant, relentless, unachievable, and ultimately the
quest for proof becomes so meaningless that it takes on the characteristic, as Weber
said, of a sport. He who has the most toys when he dies wins. . . .

Masculinity as History and the History of Masculinity

The idea of masculinity expressed in the previous extracts is the product of his-
torical shifts in the grounds on which men rooted their sense of themselves as men.
To argue that cultural definitions of gender identity are historically specific goes
only so far; we have to specify exactly what those models were. In my historical
inquiry into the development of these models of manhood1 I chart the fate of two
models for manhood at the turn of the 19th century and the emergence of a third in
the first few decades of that century.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, two models of manhood prevailed.
The Genteel Patriarch derived his identity from landownership. Supervising his
estate, he was refined, elegant, and given to casual sensuousness. He was a dot-
ing and devoted father, who spent much of his time supervising the estate and
with his family. Think of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson as examples. By
contrast, the Heroic Artisan embodied the physical strength and republican virtue
that Jefferson observed in the yeoman farmer, independent urban craftsman, or
shopkeeper. Also a devoted father, the Heroic Artisan taught his son his craft,
bringing him through ritual apprenticeship to status as master craftsman. Eco-
nomically autonomous, the Heroic Artisan also cherished his democratic com-
munity, delighting in the participatory democracy of the town meeting. Think of
Paul Revere at his pewter shop, shirtsleeves rolled up, a leather apron— a man
who took pride in his work.

Heroic Artisans and Genteel Patriarchs lived in casual accord, in part because
their gender ideals were complementary (both supported participatory democracy
and individual autonomy, although patriarchs tended to support more powerful state
machineries and also supported slavery) and because they rarely saw one another:
Artisans were decidedly urban and the Genteel Patriarchs ruled their rural estates. By
the 1830s, though, this casual symbiosis was shattered by the emergence of a new
vision of masculinity, Marketplace Manhood.

Marketplace Man derived his identity entirely from his success in the capitalist
marketplace, as he accumulated wealth, power, status. He was the urban entrepre-
neur, the businessman. Restless, agitated, and anxious, Marketplace Man was an
absentee landlord at home and an absent father with his children, devoting himself to
his work in an increasingly homosocial environment— a male- only world in which he
pits himself against other men. His efforts at self- making transform the political and
economic spheres, casting aside the Genteel Patriarch as an anachronistic feminized
dandy— sweet, but ineffective and outmoded, and transforming the Heroic Artisan
into a dispossessed proletarian, a wage slave.

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 61 2/22/16 11:34 AM

62 PART I The Social Construction of Difference: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality

As Tocqueville would have seen it, the coexistence of the Genteel Patriarch and the
Heroic Artisan embodied the fusion of liberty and equality. Genteel Patriarchy was the
manhood of the traditional aristocracy, the class that embodied the virtue of liberty.
The Heroic Artisan embodied democratic community, the solidarity of the urban
shopkeeper or craftsman. Liberty and democracy, the patriarch and the artisan, could,
and did, coexist. But Marketplace Man is capitalist man, and he makes both freedom
and equality problematic, eliminating the freedom of the aristocracy and proletarian-
izing the equality of the artisan. In one sense, American history has been an effort to
restore, retrieve, or reconstitute the virtues of Genteel Patriarchy and Heroic Artisan-
ate as they were being transformed in the capitalist marketplace.

Marketplace Manhood was a manhood that required proof, and that required
the acquisition of tangible goods as evidence of success. It reconstituted itself by the
exclusion of “others”—women, nonwhite men, nonnative- born men, homosexual
men— and by terrified flight into a pristine mythic homosocial Eden where men
could, at last, be real men among other men. The story of the ways in which Market-
place Man becomes American Everyman is a tragic tale, a tale of striving to live up
to impossible ideals of success leading to chronic terrors of emasculation, emotional
emptiness, and a gendered rage that leave a wide swath of destruction in its wake.

Masculinities as Power Relations

Marketplace Masculinity describes the normative definition of American mascu-
linity. It describes his characteristics— aggression, competition, anxiety— and the
arena in which those characteristics are deployed— the public sphere, the mar-
ketplace. If the marketplace is the arena in which manhood is tested and proved,
it is a gendered arena, in which tensions between women and men and tensions
among different groups of men are weighted with meaning. These tensions suggest
that cultural definitions of gender are played out in a contested terrain and are
themselves power relations.

All masculinities are not created equal; or rather, we are all created equal, but any
hypothetical equality evaporates quickly because our definitions of masculinity are
not equally valued in our society. One definition of manhood continues to remain
the standard against which other forms of manhood are measured and evaluated.
Within the dominant culture, the masculinity that defines white, middle class, early
middle- aged, heterosexual men is the masculinity that sets the standards for other
men, against which other men are measured and, more often than not, found want-
ing. Sociologist Erving Goffman (1963) wrote that in America, there is only “one
complete, unblushing male”:

a young, married, white, urban, northern heterosexual, Protestant father of college
education, fully employed, of good complexion, weight and height, and a recent
record in sports. Every American male tends to look out upon the world from this
perspective. . . . Any male who fails to qualify in any one of these ways is likely to view
himself . . . as unworthy, incomplete, and inferior. (p. 128)

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 62 2/22/16 11:34 AM

This is the definition that we will call “hegemonic” masculinity, the image of
masculinity of those men who hold power, which has become the standard in psy-
chological evaluations, sociological research, and self- help and advice literature for
teaching young men to become “real men” (Connell, 1987). The hegemonic defini-
tion of manhood is a man in power, a man with power, and a man of power. We
equate manhood with being strong, successful, capable, reliable, in control. The very
definitions of manhood we have developed in our culture maintain the power that
some men have over other men and that men have over women.

Our culture’s definition of masculinity is thus several stories at once. It is about the
individual man’s quest to accumulate those cultural symbols that denote manhood,
signs that he has in fact achieved it. It is about those standards being used against
women to prevent their inclusion in public life and their consignment to a devalued
private sphere. It is about the differential access that different types of men have to
those cultural resources that confer manhood and about how each of these groups then
develops their own modifications to preserve and claim their manhood. It is about the
power of these definitions themselves to serve to maintain the real- life power that men
have over women and that some men have over other men.

This definition of manhood has been summarized cleverly by psychologist Robert
Brannon (1976) into four succinct phrases:

1. “No Sissy Stuff!” One may never do anything that even remotely suggests femi-
ninity. Masculinity is the relentless repudiation of the feminine.

2. “Be a Big Wheel.” Masculinity is measured by power, success, wealth, and status. As
the current saying goes, “He who has the most toys when he dies wins.”

3. “Be a Sturdy Oak.” Masculinity depends on remaining calm and reliable in a
crisis, holding emotions in check. In fact, proving you’re a man depends on
never showing your emotions at all. Boys don’t cry.

4. “Give ‘em Hell.” Exude an aura of manly daring and aggression. Go for it. Take
risks.

These rules contain the elements of the definition against which virtually all American
men are measured. Failure to embody these rules, to affirm the power of the rules and
one’s achievement of them is a source of men’s confusion and pain. Such a model is, of
course, unrealizable for any man. But we keep trying, valiantly and vainly, to measure
up. American masculinity is a relentless test.2 The chief test is contained in the first
rule. Whatever the variations by race, class, age, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, being
a man means “not being like women.” This notion of anti femininity lies at the heart of
contemporary and historical conceptions of manhood, so that masculinity is defined
more by what one is not rather than who one is.

Masculinity as the Flight from the Feminine

Historically and developmentally, masculinity has been defined as the flight from
women, the repudiation of femininity. . . .

6 Kimmel / Masculinity as Homophobia 63

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 63 2/22/16 11:34 AM

64 PART I The Social Construction of Difference: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality

The drive to repudiate the mother as the indication of the acquisition of masculine
gender identity has three consequences for the young boy. First, he pushes away his
real mother, and with her the traits of nurturance, compassion, and tenderness she
may have embodied. Second, he suppresses those traits in himself, because they will
reveal his incomplete separation from mother. His life becomes a lifelong project to
demonstrate that he possesses none of his mother’s traits. Masculine identity is born
in the renunciation of the feminine, not in the direct affirmation of the masculine,
which leaves masculine gender identity tenuous and fragile.

Third, as if to demonstrate the accomplishment of these first two tasks, the boy
also learns to devalue all women in his society, as the living embodiments of those
traits in himself he has learned to despise. Whether or not he was aware of it, Freud
also described the origins of sexism— the systematic devaluation of women— in the
desperate efforts of the boy to separate from mother. We may want “a girl just like
the girl that married dear old Dad,” as the popular song had it, but we certainly don’t
want to be like her.

This chronic uncertainty about gender identity helps us understand several obses-
sive behaviors. Take, for example, the continuing problem of the school- yard bully.
Parents remind us that the bully is the least secure about his manhood, and so he is
constantly trying to prove it. But he “proves” it by choosing opponents he is abso-
lutely certain he can defeat; thus the standard taunt to a bully is to “pick on someone
your own size.” He can’t, though, and after defeating a smaller and weaker opponent,
which he was sure would prove his manhood, he is left with the empty gnawing feel-
ing that he has not proved it after all, and he must find another opponent, again one
smaller and weaker, that he can again defeat to prove it to himself.3 . . .

When does it end? Never. To admit weakness, to admit frailty or fragility, is to be
seen as a wimp, a sissy, not a real man. But seen by whom?

Masculinity as a Homosocial Enactment

Other men: We are under the constant careful scrutiny of other men. Other men
watch us, rank us, grant our acceptance into the realm of manhood. Manhood is dem-
onstrated for other men’s approval. It is other men who evaluate the performance.
Literary critic David Leverenz (1991) argues that “ideologies of manhood have func-
tioned primarily in relation to the gaze of male peers and male authority” (p. 769).
Think of how men boast to one another of their accomplishments— from their latest
sexual conquest to the size of the fish they caught— and how we constantly parade
the markers of manhood— wealth, power, status, sexy women— in front of other
men, desperate for their approval.

That men prove their manhood in the eyes of other men is both a consequence of
sexism and one of its chief props. “Women have, in men’s minds, such a low place on
the social ladder of this country that it’s useless to define yourself in terms of a woman,”
noted playwright David Mamet. “What men need is men’s approval.” Women become
a kind of currency that men use to improve their ranking on the masculine social

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 64 2/22/16 11:34 AM

scale. (Even those moments of heroic conquest of women carry, I believe, a current
of homosocial evaluation.) Masculinity is a homosocial enactment. We test ourselves,
perform heroic feats, take enormous risks, all because we want other men to grant
us our manhood. . . .

Masculinity as Homophobia

. . . That nightmare from which we never seem to awaken is that those other men will
see that sense of inadequacy, they will see that in our own eyes we are not who we
are pretending to be. What we call masculinity is often a hedge against being revealed
as a fraud, an exaggerated set of activities that keep others from seeing through us,
and a frenzied effort to keep at bay those fears within ourselves. Our real fear “is not
fear of women but of being ashamed or humiliated in front of other men, or being
dominated by stronger men” (Leverenz, 1986, p. 451).

This, then, is the great secret of American manhood: We are afraid of other men.
Homophobia is a central organizing principle of our cultural definition of manhood.
Homophobia is more than the irrational fear of gay men, more than the fear that we
might be perceived as gay. “The word ‘faggot’ has nothing to do with homosexual
experience or even with fears of homosexuals,” writes David Leverenz (1986). “It
comes out of the depths of manhood: a label of ultimate contempt for anyone who
seems sissy, untough, uncool” (p. 455). Homophobia is the fear that other men will
unmask us, emasculate us, reveal to us and the world that we do not measure up,
that we are not real men. We are afraid to let other men see that fear. Fear makes us
ashamed, because the recognition of fear in ourselves is proof to ourselves that we are
not as manly as we pretend, that we are, like the young man in a poem by Yeats, “one
that ruffles in a manly pose for all his timid heart.” Our fear is the fear of humiliation.
We are ashamed to be afraid.

Shame leads to silence— the silences that keep other people believing that we
actually approve of the things that are done to women, to minorities, to gays and
lesbians in our culture. The frightened silence as we scurry past a woman being
hassled by men on the street. That furtive silence when men make sexist or rac-
ist jokes in a bar. That clammy- handed silence when guys in the office make gay-
bashing jokes. Our fears are the sources of our silences, and men’s silence is what
keeps the system running. This might help to explain why women often complain
that their male friends or partners are often so understanding when they are alone
and yet laugh at sexist jokes or even make those jokes themselves when they are out
with a group.

The fear of being seen as a sissy dominates the cultural definitions of manhood.
It starts so early. “Boys among boys are ashamed to be unmanly,” wrote one educator
in 1871 (cited in Rotundo, 1993, p. 264). I have a standing bet with a friend that I
can walk onto any playground in America where 6- year- old boys are happily playing
and by asking one question, I can provoke a fight. That question is simple: “Who’s a
sissy around here?” Once posed, the challenge is made. One of two things is likely to
happen. One boy will accuse another of being a sissy, to which that boy will respond

6 Kimmel / Masculinity as Homophobia 65

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 65 2/22/16 11:34 AM

66 PART I The Social Construction of Difference: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality

that he is not a sissy, that the first boy is. They may have to fight it out to see who’s
lying. Or a whole group of boys will surround one boy and all shout “He is! He is!”
That boy will either burst into tears and run home crying, disgraced, or he will have
to take on several boys at once, to prove that he’s not a sissy. (And what will his father
or older brothers tell him if he chooses to run home crying?) It will be some time
before he regains any sense of self- respect.

Violence is often the single most evident marker of manhood. Rather it is the will-
ingness to fight, the desire to fight. The origin of our expression that one has a chip
on one’s shoulder lies in the practice of an adolescent boy in the country or small
town at the turn of the century, who would literally walk around with a chip of wood
balanced on his shoulder— a signal of his readiness to fight with anyone who would
take the initiative of knocking the chip off (see Gorer, 1964, p. 38; Mead, 1965).

As adolescents, we learn that our peers are a kind of gender police, constantly threat-
ening to unmask us as feminine, as sissies. One of the favorite tricks when I was an ado-
lescent was to ask a boy to look at his fingernails. If he held his palm toward his face and
curled his fingers back to see them, he passed the test. He’d look at his nails “like a man.”
But if he held the back of his hand away from his face, and looked at his fingernails with
arm outstretched, he was immediately ridiculed as sissy.

As young men we are constantly riding those gender boundaries, checking the
fences we have constructed on the perimeter, making sure that nothing even remotely
feminine might show through. The possibilities of being unmasked are everywhere.
Even the most seemingly insignificant thing can pose a threat or activate that haunt-
ing terror. On the day the students in my course “Sociology of Men and Masculinities”
were scheduled to discuss homophobia and male- male friendships, one student pro-
vided a touching illustration. Noting that it was a beautiful day, the first day of spring
after a brutal northeast winter, he decided to wear shorts to class. “I had this really
nice pair of new Madras shorts,” he commented. “But then I thought to myself, these
shorts have lavender and pink in them. Today’s class topic is homophobia. Maybe
today is not the best day to wear these shorts.”

Our efforts to maintain a manly front cover everything we do. What we wear. How
we talk. How we walk. What we eat. Every mannerism, every movement contains a
coded gender language. Think, for example, of how you would answer the question:
How do you “know” if a man is homosexual? When I ask this question in classes or
workshops, respondents invariably provide a pretty standard list of stereotypically
effeminate behaviors. He walks a certain way, talks a certain way, acts a certain way.
He’s very emotional; he shows his feelings. One woman commented that she “knows”
a man is gay if he really cares about her; another said she knows he’s gay if he shows
no interest in her, if he leaves her alone.

Now alter the question and imagine what heterosexual men do to make sure no
one could possibly get the “wrong idea” about them. Responses typically refer to the
original stereotypes, this time as a set of negative rules about behavior. Never dress
that way. Never talk or walk that way. Never show your feelings or get emotional.
Always be prepared to demonstrate sexual interest in women that you meet, so it is
impossible for any woman to get the wrong idea about you. In this sense, homophobia,

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 66 2/22/16 11:34 AM

the fear of being perceived as gay, as not a real man, keeps men exaggerating all the
traditional rules of masculinity, including sexual predation with women. Homopho-
bia and sexism go hand in hand. . . .

Homophobia as a Cause of Sexism,
Heterosexism, and Racism

Homophobia is intimately interwoven with both sexism and racism. The fear—
sometimes conscious, sometimes not— that others might perceive us as homo-
sexual propels men to enact all manner of exaggerated masculine behaviors and
attitudes to make sure that no one could possibly get the wrong idea about us.
One of the centerpieces of that exaggerated masculinity is putting women down,
both by excluding them from the public sphere and by the quotidian put- downs
in speech and behaviors that organize the daily life of the American man. Women
and gay men become the “other” against which heterosexual men project their
identities, against whom they stack the decks so as to compete in a situation
in which they will always win, so that by suppressing them, men can stake a
claim for their own manhood. Women threaten emasculation by representing the
home, workplace, and familial responsibility, the negation of fun. Gay men have
historically played the role of the consummate sissy in the American popular
mind because homosexuality is seen as an inversion of normal gender develop-
ment. There have been other “others.” Through American history, various groups
have represented the sissy, the non- men against whom American men played out
their definitions of manhood, often with vicious results. In fact, these changing
groups provide an interesting lesson in American historical development.

At the turn of the 19th century, it was Europeans and children who provided the
contrast for American men. The “true American was vigorous, manly, and direct, not
effete and corrupt like the supposed Europeans,” writes Rupert Wilkinson (1986).
“He was plain rather than ornamented, rugged rather than luxury seeking, a liberty
loving common man or natural gentleman rather than an aristocratic oppressor or
servile minion” (p. 96). The “real man” of the early 19th century was neither noble
nor serf. By the middle of the century, black slaves had replaced the effete nobleman.
Slaves were seen as dependent, helpless men, incapable of defending their women
and children, and therefore less than manly. Native Americans were cast as foolish
and naive children, so they could be infantalized as the “Red Children of the Great
White Father” and therefore excluded from full manhood.

By the end of the century, new European immigrants were also added to the list of
the unreal men, especially the Irish and Italians, who were seen as too passionate and
emotionally volatile to remain controlled sturdy oaks, and Jews, who were seen as too
bookishly effete and too physically puny to truly measure up. In the mid- 20th cen-
tury, it was also Asians— first the Japanese during the Second World War, and more
recently, the Vietnamese during the Vietnam War— who have served as unmanly
templates against which American men have hurled their gendered rage. Asian men
were seen as small, soft, and effeminate— hardly men at all.

6 Kimmel / Masculinity as Homophobia 67

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 67 2/22/16 11:34 AM

68 PART I The Social Construction of Difference: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality

Such a list of “hyphenated” Americans— Italian-, Jewish-, Irish-, African-, Native-,
Asian-, gay— composes the majority of American men. So manhood is only possible
for a distinct minority, and the definition has been constructed to prevent the others
from achieving it. Interestingly, this emasculation of one’s enemies has a flip side—
and one that is equally gendered. These very groups that have historically been cast
as less than manly were also, often simultaneously, cast as hypermasculine, as sexu-
ally aggressive, violent rapacious beasts, against whom “civilized” men must take
a decisive stand and thereby rescue civilization. Thus black men were depicted as
rampaging sexual beasts, women as carnivorously carnal, gay men as sexually insa-
tiable, southern European men as sexually predatory and voracious, and Asian men
as vicious and cruel torturers who were immorally disinterested in life itself, willing
to sacrifice their entire people for their whims. But whether one saw these groups as
effeminate sissies or as brutal savages, the terms with which they were perceived were
gendered. These groups become the “others,” the screens against which traditional
conceptions of manhood were developed. . . .

Power and Powerlessness in the Lives of Men

I have argued that homophobia, men’s fear of other men, is the animating condi-
tion of the dominant definition of masculinity in America, that the reigning defini-
tion of masculinity is a defensive effort to prevent being emasculated. In our efforts
to suppress or overcome those fears, the dominant culture exacts a tremendous
price from those deemed less than fully manly: women, gay men, nonnative- born
men, men of color. This perspective may help clarify a paradox in men’s lives, a
paradox in which men have virtually all the power and yet do not feel powerful
(see Kaufman, 1993).

Manhood is equated with power— over women, over other men. Everywhere we
look, we see the institutional expression of that power— in state and national legisla-
tures, on the boards of directors of every major U.S. corporation or law firm, and in
every school and hospital administration. . . .

When confronted with the analysis that men have all the power, many men react
incredulously. “What do you mean, men have all the power?” they ask. “What are you
talking about? My wife bosses me around. My kids boss me around. My boss bosses
me around. I have no power at all! I’m completely powerless!”

Men’s feelings are not the feelings of the powerful, but of those who see themselves as
powerless. These are the feelings that come inevitably from the discontinuity between the
social and the psychological, between the aggregate analysis that reveals how men are in
power as a group and the psychological fact that they do not feel powerful as individuals.
They are the feelings of men who were raised to believe themselves entitled to feel that
power, but do not feel it. No wonder many men are frustrated and angry. . . .

Why, then, do American men feel so powerless? Part of the answer is because we’ve
constructed the rules of manhood so that only the tiniest fraction of men come to
believe that they are the biggest of wheels, the sturdiest of oaks, the most virulent
repudiators of femininity, the most daring and aggressive. We’ve managed to disempower

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 68 2/22/16 11:34 AM

the overwhelming majority of American men by other means— such as discriminating
on the basis of race, class, ethnicity, age, or sexual preference. . .

Others still rehearse the politics of exclusion, as if by clearing away the playing
field of secure gender identity of any that we deem less than manly— women, gay
men, nonnative- born men, men of color— middle- class, straight, white men can re-
ground their sense of themselves without those haunting fears and that deep shame
that they are unmanly and will be exposed by other men. This is the manhood of rac-
ism, of sexism, of homophobia. It is the manhood that is so chronically insecure that
it trembles at the idea of lifting the ban on gays in the military, that is so threatened by
women in the workplace that women become the targets of sexual harassment, that
is so deeply frightened of equality that it must ensure that the playing field of male
competition remains stacked against all newcomers to the game.

Exclusion and escape have been the dominant methods American men have used
to keep their fears of humiliation at bay. The fear of emasculation by other men, of
being humiliated, of being seen as a sissy, is the leitmotif in my reading of the history
of American manhood. Masculinity has become a relentless test by which we prove to
other men, to women, and ultimately to ourselves, that we have successfully mastered
the part. The restlessness that men feel today is nothing new in American history; we
have been anxious and restless for almost two centuries. Neither exclusion nor escape
has ever brought us the relief we’ve sought, and there is no reason to think that either
will solve our problems now. Peace of mind, relief from gender struggle, will come
only from a politics of inclusion, not exclusion, from standing up for equality and
justice, and not by running away.

NOTES

1. Much of this work is elaborated in Manhood: The American Quest (in press).
2. Although I am here discussing only American masculinity, I am aware that others
have located this chronic instability and efforts to prove manhood in the particular cul-
tural and economic arrangements of Western society. Calvin, after all, inveighed against the
disgrace “for men to become effeminate,” and countless other theorists have described the
mechanics of manly proof (see, for example, Seidler, 1994).
3. Such observations also led journalist Heywood Broun to argue that most of the
attacks against feminism came from men who were shorter than 5 ft. 7 in. “The man who,
whatever his physical size, feels secure in his own masculinity and in his own relation to life
is rarely resentful of the opposite sex” (cited in Symes, 1930, p. 139).

REFERENCES

Brannon,  R. (1976). The male sex role— and what it’s done for us lately. In 
R.  Brannon &  D.  David (Eds.), The forty- nine percent majority (pp.  1–40). Reading, MA:
Addison- Wesley.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Freud, S. (1933/1966). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis (L. Strachey, Ed.).
New York: Norton.

6 Kimmel / Masculinity as Homophobia 69

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 69 2/22/16 11:34 AM

70 PART I The Social Construction of Difference: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gorer, G. (1964). The American people: A study in national character. New York: Norton.
Kaufman, M. (1993). Cracking the armour: Power and pain in the lives of men. Toronto:
Viking Canada.
Leverenz, D. (1986). Manhood, humiliation and public life: Some stories. Southwest
Review, 71, Fall.
Leverenz, D. (1991). The last real man in America: From Natty Bumppo to Batman.
American Literary Review, 3.
Marx, K., & F. Engels. (1848/1964). The communist manifesto. In R. Tucker (Ed.), The
Marx- Engels reader. New York: Norton.
Mead, M. (1965). And keep your powder dry. New York: William Morrow.
Rotundo, E. A. (1993). American manhood: Transformations in masculinity from the revo-
lution to the modern era. New York: Basic Books.
Seidler,  V.  J. (1994). Unreasonable men: Masculinity and social theory. New  York:
Routledge.
Symes, L. (1930). The new masculinism. Harper’s Monthly, 161, January.
Tocqueville, A. de. (1835/1967). Democracy in America. New York: Anchor.
Weber,  M. (1905/1966). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New  York:
Charles Scribner’s.
Wilkinson, R. (1986). American tough: The tough- guy tradition and American character.
New York: Harper & Row.

03_ROT_7866_P1_05_098.indd 70 2/22/16 11:34 AM

p a u l a s . r o t h e n b e r g

T E N T H

E D I T I O N

A N I N T E G R A T E D S T U D Y

RACE, CLASS,
AND GENDER
IN THE UNITED STATES

r
o

t
h

e
n

b
e

r
g

T E N T H

E D I T I O N

R
A

C
E
, C

L
A

S
S

, A
N

D
G

E
N

D
E
R

IN
T

H
E
U

N
IT

E
D

S
T
A

T
E
S

RACE, CLASS, AND GENDER
IN THE UNITED STATES,

Tenth Edition

Paula S. Rothenberg
This best-selling anthology expertly explores concepts of identity, diversity, and
inequality as it introduces students to race, class, gender, and sexuality in the United
States. The thoroughly updated Tenth Edition features 38 new readings. New mate-
rial explores citizenship and immigration, mass incarceration, sex crimes on campus,
transgender identity, the school-to-prison pipeline, food insecurity, the Black Lives
Matter movement, the pathology of poverty, socioeconomic privilege versus racial
privilege, pollution on tribal lands, stereotype threat, gentrification, and more.
The combination of thoughtfully selected readings, deftly written introductions,
and careful organization makes Race, Class, and Gender in the United States, Tenth
Edition, the most engaging and balanced presentation of these issues available today.

Readings new to the Tenth Edition include:

• The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander

• How Does It Feel to Be a Problem? Being Young and Arab in America by
Moustafa Bayoumi

• Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates

• Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage

• Immigration Enforcement as a Race-Making Institution by Douglas S. Massey

• Domestic Workers Bill of Rights by Ai-jen Poo

• The New Face of Hunger by Tracie McMillan

• My Class Didn’t Trump My Race by Robin DiAngelo

• Intersectionality: An Everyday Metaphor Anyone Can Use, Kimberlé Crenshaw
interviewed by Bim Adewunmi

• Black Ethnics: Race, Immigration, and the Pursuit of the American Dream by
Christina Greer

• Transgender Feminism: Queering the Woman Question by Susan Stryker

• Debunking the Pathology of Poverty by Susan Greenbaum

• The Transgender Crucible, reporting on the life and imprisonment of
transgender activist CeCe McDonald, by Sabrina Rubin Erdely

• Neither Black nor White, on the racialization of Asian Americans, by
Angelo Ancheta

• “You are in the dark, in the car…” from Citizen: An American Lyric by
Claudia Rankine

• When You Forget to Whistle Vivaldi by Tressie McMillan Cottom

Instructor’s resources to accompany Race, Class, and Gender in the United States,
Tenth Edition, are available for download. Instructor’s resources include Reading for
Comprehension Questions, Writing Assignments, Article Summaries, Research Proj-
ects, Recommended Media, and Data Activities.

6 × 9.25 SPINE: 0.8125 FLAPS: 0

www.macmillanlearning.com
Cover photo: Silberkorn/Shutterstock

New York

RACE, CLASS,
AND GENDER
IN THE UNITED STATES
A N I N T E G R AT E D S T U DY

Tenth Edition

Paula S. Rothenberg

with
Soniya Munshi
Borough of Manhattan

Community College

01_ROT_7866_FM_i_xx.indd 3 2/25/16 10:30 AM

Publisher, Psychology and Sociology: Rachel Losh
Associate Publisher: Jessica Bayne
Senior Associate Editor: Sarah Berger
Development Editor: Thomas Finn
Assistant Editor: Kimberly Morgan Smith
Executive Marketing Manager: Katherine Nurre
Media Producer: Hanna Squire
Director, Content Management Enhancement: Tracey Kuehn
Managing Editor, Sciences and Social Sciences: Lisa Kinne
Senior Project Editor: Kerry O’Shaughnessy
Photo Editor: Robin Fadool
Permissions Associate: Chelsea Roden
Director of Design, Content Management: Diana Blume
Senior Design Manager: Vicki Tomaselli
Cover and Interior Design: Kevin Kall
Senior Production Supervisor: Stacey B. Alexander
Composition: Jouve North America
Printing and Binding: RR Donnelley
Cover Photo: Silberkorn/Shutterstock

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016932674

ISBN- 13: 978-1-4641-7866-5
ISBN- 10: 1-4641-7866-6

© 2016, 2014, 2010, 2007 by Worth Publishers

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America

First printing

Worth Publishers
One New York Plaza
Suite 4500
New York, NY 10004-1562
www.worthpublishers.com

01_ROT_7866_FM_i_xx.indd 4 2/25/16 10:30 AM

http://www.worthpublishers.com

• Front Cover
• Half
• Title Page

Title Page

• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• About the Author
• Introduction
• Part I: The Social Construction of Difference: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality

1. Racial Formations: Michael Omi and Howard Winant
2. Constructing Race, Creating White Privilege: Pem Davidson Buck
3. How Jews Became White Folks: And What That Says About Race in America: Karen Brodkin
4. “Night to His Day”: The Social Construction of Gender: Judith Lorber
5. The Invention of Heterosexuality: Jonathan Ned Katz
6. Masculinity as Homophobia Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity: Michael S. Kimmel
7. Transgender Feminism: Queering the Woman Question Susan Stryker
8. Debunking the Pathology of Poverty: Susan Greenbaum
9. Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History: Douglas C. Baynton
10. Domination and Subordination: Jean Baker Miller
Suggestions for Further Reading

• Part II: Understanding Racism, Sexism, Heterosexism, and Class Privilege

1. Defining Racism“: Can We Talk?”: Beverly Daniel Tatum
2. Color-Blind Racism Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
3. Neither Black nor White: Angelo N. Ancheta
4. Oppression: Marilyn Frye
5. Homophobia as a Weapon of Sexism: Suzanne Pharr
6. Class in America: Gregory Mantsios
7. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life: Annette Lareau
8. Intersectionality: An Everyday Metaphor Anyone Can Use: Kimberlé Crenshaw, interviewed by Bim Adewunmi
9. White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack Peggy McIntosh
10. My Class Didn’t Trump My Race: Using Oppression to Face Privilege: Robin J. DiAngelo
Suggestions for Further Reading

• Part III: Complicating Questions of Identity: Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration

1. Immigration in the United States: New Economic, Social, Political Landscapes with Legislative Reform on the Horizon: Faye Hipsman and Doris Meissner
2. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of America: Mae Ngai
3. Los Intersticios: Recasting Moving Selves: Evelyn Alsultany
4. For Many Latinos, Racial Identity Is More Culture than Color: Mireya Navarro
5. Black Ethnics: Race, Immigration, and the Pursuit of the American Dream: Christina M. Greer
6. The Myth of the Model Minority: Noy Thrupkaew
7. How Does It Feel to Be a Problem?: Moustafa Bayoumi
Suggestions for Further Reading

• Part IV: Discrimination in Everyday Life

1. The Problem: Discrimination: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
2. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness: Michelle Alexander
3. Deportations Are Down, But Fear Persists Among Undocumented Immigrants: Tim Henderson
4. The Ghosts of Stonewall: Policing Gender, Policing Sex: Joey L. Mogul, Andrea J. Ritchie, and Kay Whitlak
5. The Transgender Crucible: Sabrina Rubin Erdely
6. Where “English Only” Falls Short: Stacy A. Teicher
7. My Black Skin Makes My White Coat Vanish: Mana Lumumba-Kasongo
8. Women in the State Police: Trouble in the Ranks: Jonathan Schuppe
9. Muslim-American Running Back Off the Team at New Mexico State: Matthew Rothschild
10. Race, Disability and the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Julianne Hing
11. The Segregated Classrooms of a Proudly Diverse School: Jeffrey Gettleman
12. Race and Family Income of Students Influence Guidance Counselor’s Advice, Study Finds: Eric Hoover
13. By the Numbers: Sex Crimes on Campus: Dave Gustafson
14. More Blacks Live with Pollution: The Associated Press
15. Pollution, Poverty and People of Color: A Michigan Tribe Battles a Global Corporation: Brian Bienkowski
16. Testimony: Sonny Singh
Suggestions for Further Reading

• Part V: The Economics of Race, Class, and Gender

1. Imagine a Country Holly Sklar
2. Wealth Inequality Has Widened Along Racial, Ethnic Lines Since End of Great Recession: Rakesh Kochhar and Richard Fry
3. The Making of the American 99% and the Collapse of the Middle Class: Barbara Ehrenreich and John Ehrenreich
4. Immigration Enforcement as a Race-Making Institution: Douglas S. Massey
5. For Asian Americans, Wealth Stereotypes Don’t Fit Reality: Seth Freed Wessler
6. Gender and the Black Jobs Crisis: Linda Burnham
7. Domestic Workers Bill of Rights: A Feminist Approach for a New Economy: Ai-jen Poo
8. “Savage Inequalities” Revisited: Bob Feldman
9. The New Face of Hunger: Tracie McMillan
10. “I am Alena”: Life as a Trans Woman Where Survival Means Living as Christopher: Ed Pilkington
11. Cause of Death: Inequality: Alejandro Reuss
12. Inequality Undermines Democracy: Eduardo Porter
Suggestions for Further Reading

• Part VI: Many Voices, Many Lives: Issues of Race, Class,Gender, and Sexuality in Everyday Life

1. Civilize Them with a Stick: Mary Brave Bird (Crow Dog) with Richard Erdoes
2. Then Came the War: Yuri Kochiyama
3. Crossing the Border Without Losing Your Past: Oscar Casares
4. Between the World and Me: Ta-Nehisi Coates
5. “I wouldn’t have come if I’d known.”: E. Tammy Kim
6. This Person Doesn’t Sound White: Ziba Kashef
7. “You are in the dark, in the car . . .”: Claudia Rankine
8. He Defies You Still: The Memoirs of a Sissy: Tommi Avicolli
9. Against “Bullying” or On Loving Queer Kids: Richard Kim
10. The Case of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson: Ableism, Heterosexism, and Sexism: Joan L. Griscom
11. Gentrification Will Drive My Uncle Out of His Neighborhood, and I Will Have Helped: Eric Rodriguez
12. My Vassar College Faculty ID Makes Everything OK: Kiese Laymon
13. The Unbearable (In)visibility of Being Trans: Chase Strangio
14. Black Bodies in Motion and in Pain: Edwidge Danticat
Suggestions for Further Reading

• Part VII: How It Happened: Race and Gender Issues in U.S. Law

1. Indian Tribes: A Continuing Quest for Survival U.S. Commission on Human Rights
2. An Act for the Better Ordering and Governing of Negroes and Slaves, South Carolina, 1712
3. The “Three-Fifths Compromise”: The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2
4. An Act Prohibiting the Teaching of Slaves to Read
5. Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, Seneca Falls Convention, 1848
6. People v. Hall, 1854
7. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857
8. The Emancipation Proclamation: Abraham Lincoln
9. United States Constitution: Thirteenth (1865), Fourteenth (1868), and Fifteenth (1870) Amendments
10. The Black Codes: W. E. B. Du Bois
11. The Chinese Exclusion Act
12. Elk v. Wilkins, 1884
13. Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
14. United States Constitution: Nineteenth Amendment (1920)
15. U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 1923
16. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954
17. Roe v. Wade, 1973
18. The Equal Rights Amendment (Defeated)
19. Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015
Suggestions for Further Reading

• Part VIII: Maintaining Race, Class, and Gender Hierarchies: Reproducing “Reality”

1. Self-Fulfilling Stereotypes: Mark Snyder
2. Am I Thin Enough Yet? Sharlene Hesse-Biber
3. Institutions and Ideologies: Michael Parenti
4. Media Magic: Making Class Invisible: Gregory Mantsios
5. Still Separate, Still Unequal: America’s Educational Apartheid: Jonathan Kozol
6. Masked Racism: Reflections on the Prison Industrial Complex: Angela Davis
7. You May Know Me from Such Roles as Terrorist #4: Jon Ronson
8. The Florida State Seminoles: The Champions of Racist Mascots: Dave Zirin
9. Michael Brown’s Unremarkable Humanity: Ta-Nehisi Coates
10. When You Forget to Whistle Vivaldi: Tressie McMillan Cottom
Suggestions for Further Reading

• Part IX: Social Change: Revisioning the Future and Making a Difference

1. Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference: Audre Lorde
2. Feminism: A Transformational Politic: bell hooks
3. A New Vision of Masculinity: Cooper Thompson
4. Interrupting the Cycle of Oppression: The Role of Allies as Agents of Change: Andrea Ayvazian
5. Demand the Impossible: Matthew Rothschild
6. The Motivating Forces Behind Black Lives Matter: Tasbeeh Herwees
7. On Solidarity, “Centering Anti-Blackness,” and Asian Americans: Scot Nakagawa
Suggestions for Further Reading

• Index
• Back Cover
• Rothenberg, Race, Class, and Gender in the United States – An Integrated Study (2016)

Front Cover
Half Title Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Contents
Preface
About the Author
Introduction
Part I: The Social Construction of Difference: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality
1. Racial Formations: Michael Omi and Howard Winant
2. Constructing Race, Creating White Privilege: Pem Davidson Buck
3. How Jews Became White Folks: And What That Says About Race in America: Karen Brodkin
4. “Night to His Day”: The Social Construction of Gender: Judith Lorber
5. The Invention of Heterosexuality: Jonathan Ned Katz
6. Masculinity as Homophobia Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity: Michael S. Kimmel
7. Transgender Feminism: Queering the Woman Question Susan Stryker
8. Debunking the Pathology of Poverty: Susan Greenbaum
9. Disability and the Justification of Inequality in American History: Douglas C. Baynton
10. Domination and Subordination: Jean Baker Miller
Suggestions for Further Reading
Part II: Understanding Racism, Sexism, Heterosexism, and Class Privilege
1. Defining Racism“: Can We Talk?”: Beverly Daniel Tatum
2. Color-Blind Racism Eduardo Bonilla-Silva
3. Neither Black nor White: Angelo N. Ancheta
4. Oppression: Marilyn Frye
5. Homophobia as a Weapon of Sexism: Suzanne Pharr
6. Class in America: Gregory Mantsios
7. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life: Annette Lareau
8. Intersectionality: An Everyday Metaphor Anyone Can Use: Kimberlé Crenshaw, interviewed by Bim Adewunmi
9. White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack Peggy McIntosh
10. My Class Didn’t Trump My Race: Using Oppression to Face Privilege: Robin J. DiAngelo
Suggestions for Further Reading
Part III: Complicating Questions of Identity: Race, Ethnicity, and Immigration
1. Immigration in the United States: New Economic, Social, Political Landscapes with Legislative Reform on the Horizon: Faye Hipsman and Doris Meissner
2. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of America: Mae Ngai
3. Los Intersticios: Recasting Moving Selves: Evelyn Alsultany
4. For Many Latinos, Racial Identity Is More Culture than Color: Mireya Navarro
5. Black Ethnics: Race, Immigration, and the Pursuit of the American Dream: Christina M. Greer
6. The Myth of the Model Minority: Noy Thrupkaew
7. How Does It Feel to Be a Problem?: Moustafa Bayoumi
Suggestions for Further Reading
Part IV: Discrimination in Everyday Life
1. The Problem: Discrimination: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
2. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness: Michelle Alexander
3. Deportations Are Down, But Fear Persists Among Undocumented Immigrants: Tim Henderson
4. The Ghosts of Stonewall: Policing Gender, Policing Sex: Joey L. Mogul, Andrea J. Ritchie, and Kay Whitlak
5. The Transgender Crucible: Sabrina Rubin Erdely
6. Where “English Only” Falls Short: Stacy A. Teicher
7. My Black Skin Makes My White Coat Vanish: Mana Lumumba-Kasongo
8. Women in the State Police: Trouble in the Ranks: Jonathan Schuppe
9. Muslim-American Running Back Off the Team at New Mexico State: Matthew Rothschild
10. Race, Disability and the School-to-Prison Pipeline: Julianne Hing
11. The Segregated Classrooms of a Proudly Diverse School: Jeffrey Gettleman
12. Race and Family Income of Students Influence Guidance Counselor’s Advice, Study Finds: Eric Hoover
13. By the Numbers: Sex Crimes on Campus: Dave Gustafson
14. More Blacks Live with Pollution: The Associated Press
15. Pollution, Poverty and People of Color: A Michigan Tribe Battles a Global Corporation: Brian Bienkowski
16. Testimony: Sonny Singh
Suggestions for Further Reading
Part V: The Economics of Race, Class, and Gender
1. Imagine a Country Holly Sklar
2. Wealth Inequality Has Widened Along Racial, Ethnic Lines Since End of Great Recession: Rakesh Kochhar and Richard Fry
3. The Making of the American 99% and the Collapse of the Middle Class: Barbara Ehrenreich and John Ehrenreich
4. Immigration Enforcement as a Race-Making Institution: Douglas S. Massey
5. For Asian Americans, Wealth Stereotypes Don’t Fit Reality: Seth Freed Wessler
6. Gender and the Black Jobs Crisis: Linda Burnham
7. Domestic Workers Bill of Rights: A Feminist Approach for a New Economy: Ai-jen Poo
8. “Savage Inequalities” Revisited: Bob Feldman
9. The New Face of Hunger: Tracie McMillan
10. “I am Alena”: Life as a Trans Woman Where Survival Means Living as Christopher: Ed Pilkington
11. Cause of Death: Inequality: Alejandro Reuss
12. Inequality Undermines Democracy: Eduardo Porter
Suggestions for Further Reading
Part VI: Many Voices, Many Lives: Issues of Race, Class,Gender, and Sexuality in Everyday Life
1. Civilize Them with a Stick: Mary Brave Bird (Crow Dog) with Richard Erdoes
2. Then Came the War: Yuri Kochiyama
3. Crossing the Border Without Losing Your Past: Oscar Casares
4. Between the World and Me: Ta-Nehisi Coates
5. “I wouldn’t have come if I’d known.”: E. Tammy Kim
6. This Person Doesn’t Sound White: Ziba Kashef
7. “You are in the dark, in the car . . .”: Claudia Rankine
8. He Defies You Still: The Memoirs of a Sissy: Tommi Avicolli
9. Against “Bullying” or On Loving Queer Kids: Richard Kim
10. The Case of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson: Ableism, Heterosexism, and Sexism: Joan L. Griscom
11. Gentrification Will Drive My Uncle Out of His Neighborhood, and I Will Have Helped: Eric Rodriguez
12. My Vassar College Faculty ID Makes Everything OK: Kiese Laymon
13. The Unbearable (In)visibility of Being Trans: Chase Strangio
14. Black Bodies in Motion and in Pain: Edwidge Danticat
Suggestions for Further Reading
Part VII: How It Happened: Race and Gender Issues in U.S. Law
1. Indian Tribes: A Continuing Quest for Survival U.S. Commission on Human Rights
2. An Act for the Better Ordering and Governing of Negroes and Slaves, South Carolina, 1712
3. The “Three-Fifths Compromise”: The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 2
4. An Act Prohibiting the Teaching of Slaves to Read
5. Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions, Seneca Falls Convention, 1848
6. People v. Hall, 1854
7. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857
8. The Emancipation Proclamation: Abraham Lincoln
9. United States Constitution: Thirteenth (1865), Fourteenth (1868), and Fifteenth (1870) Amendments
10. The Black Codes: W. E. B. Du Bois
11. The Chinese Exclusion Act
12. Elk v. Wilkins, 1884
13. Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
14. United States Constitution: Nineteenth Amendment (1920)
15. U.S. v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 1923
16. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954
17. Roe v. Wade, 1973
18. The Equal Rights Amendment (Defeated)
19. Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015
Suggestions for Further Reading
Part VIII: Maintaining Race, Class, and Gender Hierarchies: Reproducing “Reality”
1. Self-Fulfilling Stereotypes: Mark Snyder
2. Am I Thin Enough Yet? Sharlene Hesse-Biber
3. Institutions and Ideologies: Michael Parenti
4. Media Magic: Making Class Invisible: Gregory Mantsios
5. Still Separate, Still Unequal: America’s Educational Apartheid: Jonathan Kozol
6. Masked Racism: Reflections on the Prison Industrial Complex: Angela Davis
7. You May Know Me from Such Roles as Terrorist #4: Jon Ronson
8. The Florida State Seminoles: The Champions of Racist Mascots: Dave Zirin
9. Michael Brown’s Unremarkable Humanity: Ta-Nehisi Coates
10. When You Forget to Whistle Vivaldi: Tressie McMillan Cottom
Suggestions for Further Reading
Part IX: Social Change: Revisioning the Future and Making a Difference
1. Age, Race, Class, and Sex: Women Redefining Difference: Audre Lorde
2. Feminism: A Transformational Politic: bell hooks
3. A New Vision of Masculinity: Cooper Thompson
4. Interrupting the Cycle of Oppression: The Role of Allies as Agents of Change: Andrea Ayvazian
5. Demand the Impossible: Matthew Rothschild
6. The Motivating Forces Behind Black Lives Matter: Tasbeeh Herwees
7. On Solidarity, “Centering Anti-Blackness,” and Asian Americans: Scot Nakagawa
Suggestions for Further Reading
Index
Back Cover