Breaking the Mold of Gender Stereotypes

A natural gender distinction exists in society. Children are taught from a young age that their clothes are labelled. Blue is for boys. Pink is for girls. The entertainment industry has taken this distinction to new extremes.

The totality of the popular Nintendo game ‘Super Mario Bros.’ depicts brave Mario on his dangerous quest to find and rescue Princess Peach, the misfortunate beauty who is being held hostage in evil Bowser’s castle. 

In the James Bond franchise, the secret agent with rippling pectoral muscles is famous for his one-night stands and chauvinistic attitude towards the women around him. A common thread weaves these, and most other popular phenomenon’s together- the woman is always the inferior character, the ‘damsel in distress’. 

While some progression has been made in the entertainment industry with heroines like Katniss Everdeen and Hermoine Granger, it is clear that we must see stronger growth before our children can experience a non-gender discriminatory society.

The upcoming US presidential election magnifies the above and depicts this discrimination on the real-life world stage. While I can appreciate that having a women candidate is remarkable, I find it upsetting that this gender classification has been the vocal point of the campaign.

In my home country of Ireland, woman have featured heavily in politics for many years. Two of the previous three presidents of Ireland have been women. While the Chief Justice of Ireland, Susan Denham, is the first female to hold this position, women are commonly seen in other judicial roles such as Supreme Court Justices (three in total) and High Court Justices (ten in total). 

The political leaders of any nation should be a fair depiction of all that nation represents. They should view their country as a cohesive whole, and give respect to their distinctive traditions, language and political beliefs.

Before a nation identifies under any of these categories, we can describe its citizens in the most basic of terms: ALL inhabitants of that particular state. Fundamental to this explanation is the equal composition of men and women. 

Of the 2010 USA Census population, 157.0 million were female (50.8 percent) while 151.8 million were male (49.2 percent). A female-led government should therefore not be painted as such a shock factor for this upcoming election. 

Perhaps I take for granted how lucky I am to have been raised in a country where gender-balanced leadership is not an elusive concept. I hope the citizens of America realise their duty to move towards change and to work towards discontinuing the permeation of the above pop-culture gender stereotypes in the real world.

If we stop defining each other by what we are not, and start defining ourselves by who we are, we can all be a lot freer  Emma Watson

Women in Ireland

Ireland, the beautiful Emerald Isle, off the coast of mainland Europe is the wonderful place I happily call home. Though small in both size and population, this fine nation has provided the world with some of the greats; Oscar Wilde, U2, and Conor McGregor, to name but a few. We are a nation that prides ourselves on our patriotism as we know how hard those who came before us had to work for independence. And we are a nation that have the incredible ability to grow and reform with the times.  

In the past century Ireland has practically never failed to evolve and accept change. While I can appreciate that, at times, such evolution is difficult and requires a great deal of effort and sacrifice, it is rare that a minority feels unaccepted or undervalued in our society. We have, in a relatively short amount of time, become independent from British Rule, legalised homosexual marriage, and has made major improvements with respect to feminism and women’s rights.

As was the case in most countries, and perhaps still is in some, Ireland was not always a place in which women were regarded as first-class citizens. Women had to fight to receive recognition of their status as humans deserving of basic human rights, such as the right to vote and the right to work. During the 1916 Easter Rising, a time during which the citizens of Ireland rebelled against British Rule to gain independence, Constance Markievics was a woman who was heavily involved in the organisation and carrying out of the rebellion. Due to the rebels’ immediate failure the most prominent figures involved were sentenced to death. Constance Markievics, however, who, due to her sex, was not. Even though she participated almost equally to the sixteen other men who were executed, she was instead sentenced to life in prison. The blatant sexism outraged her, of course. 

In my opinion, the strong presence of the Catholic faith in Ireland contributed to a significant portion of the oppression of women. According to the 1946 Census of Ireland 94% of the country identified as Roman Catholic. Due to this society placed a burden on women to behave a certain way. It was largely uncommon for children to be had outside of wedlock, and often those young women who did fall pregnant were placed into labour-intensive facilities referred to as the Magdalene Laundries. There they would work during their pregnancy and, upon the birth of their baby, it would be adopted by strangers. Married women were viewed as being inferior to their husbands. Their place was in the home raising children. It was common for families to have many kids and, being granddaughter to a woman who came from a family of thirteen children, I speak from experience. The Marriage Bar prevented married women from working outside the home.

Change in Ireland came about slowly at first. The right to vote was granted to women in 1918 which was a massive step in the development of women’s rights. First-wave feminists such as Maude Gonne and Constance Markievics relinquished their titles to new and determined second-wave feminists including the likes of Nell McCafferty and Nuala O’Faolain, women working hard for equality of the sexes. The 1970s brought with them times of monumental change for Irish women with massive statutory reform in favour of equal treatment of women and men. These changes came about in many areas such as employment and property rights with the legalisation of contraception occurring in the 1980s in spite of the ever-present Roman Catholic faith.

As I am Irish, my knowledge of the development of American feminism and the movements towards women’s rights was significantly lacking. I had barely ever before heard the names of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony prior to my first Feminist Legal Theory Class. Therefore, the ability to watch their progress and the progress of so many others that followed their lead, such as Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro, was truly enlightening. Knowing the history and improvements that had occurred in my own country made it decidedly fascinating to observe those of America. Comparing, contrasting and evaluating the various similarities and distinctions was an interesting process. It allowed me to further understand the turmoil and effort that those who came before us put into achieving basic human rights.

The history of feminism, regardless of the country in which it took place, is always impressive and always inspiring. Being a more passive person than I would like to be, I have a tendency to allow things to take their own course without my own interference. However, when it comes to the topic of feminism I look at all the good that has been done. I am pleased with the progress that has been made for us but it also strikes me just how far we have yet to go. 

Allies and defining the movement

Our first class period of the semester we answered two fundamental yet complex questions. “Do we consider ourselves feminists? And what does feminism mean to you?” There answers shared some commonalities, but each person’s beliefs and experiences influenced their responses. I ardently answered the first question in the affirmative. However, I avoided the second question altogether (whether intentionally or not I am not quite certain).

As a cis-male, my relationship with feminism is ever evolving; I try to be a constant learner, always open minded. Yet, I have been consistently reluctant to define feminism. I associate certain socio-economical and political tenetss to feminism: equal pay, reproductive choice, anti-body shaming. But I will not say Carly Fiorina is not a feminist, or not a good feminist. But is this reluctance correct? Is it evasive? I honestly do not know the answer.

I looked to bell hooks’ "Feminism is for Everyone" for some insight ( https://excoradfeminisms.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/bell_hooks-feminism_is_for_everybody.pdf). To hooks, creating male allies and generating feminist conscious-raising among men are pivotal to the success of the movement. This much seems intuitive; an exponential effect of more pro-feminism men checking the privilege of others, in turn creating more pro-feminism men.

hooks also articulates the importance of dismantling the false media narrative of anti-men feminism. hooks argues for educating men at a young age to effectively counter this. hooks identifies the benefits that feminism has for men. Patriarchy has clearly failed a majority of men, she argues, pointing at the male anxiety of the incoherent "men's rights" movement. It has left so many without a basis for identity based on anything except violent power.

Yet, hooks does not speak directly to my earlier quandary. I assume there are two reasons for this. First, it is a generally broad text, covering many topics; it contains historical background, critiques of past methods, and hopes for the future of feminism. Second, societal conscious-raising will achieve more for feminism than finely articulating male ally roles and responsibilities. But inferences can be made when considering the other preeminent goals hooks sets out in the text.

In the introduction to her book, hooks laments the breakdown of feminist politics within the feminist movement. Responsible, in hooks' mind, is the lack of clear definitions of what it means to be feminist. Without clear definitions, internalized sexism and patriarchal attitudes remain unchallenged. hooks considers addressing internalized sexism essential to the feminist movement.

After reading hooks, I consider my past silence evasive, and . If definitions are needed, and internalized sexism must be conquered, then allies cannot afford to be silent. This is not all to say that I, as a man, should be defining what feminism is. Rather, I must be actively seeking out the appropriate definitions so I can be confident in public discourse.

This semester, I plan to do just that, to become well versed, knowledgeable and confident. The next time I am asked those two fundamental questions, I will be able to answer both with equal vigor and confidence.

Are you a round or a pointy.

Are you a round or a pointy?

I was sent this article by a friend in a group text accompanied by "ARE YOU A POINTY OR A ROUND!"  Eager to be part of the labeling of our friends that immediately followed, I read the article.  I found myself learning more than was necessary about the author's family dogs.  Then the article asked if I understood the distinction the author was outlining with this comparison of canine personality traits.  I did not get it.

Eventually there was a list of celebrities with definitive classifications of "pointy" or "round."  Wanting to be a certain way is "pointy."  Not caring about types is "round." Again, I didn't get it.  I struggled to put my traits squarely in one of these two categories (pun intended).   It was almost as if my personality was more complicated than this strict dichotomy allowed. 

This is not the first time I've been asked to sort myself into one of two options.  I'm sure many readers relate.  There are quizzes online, in magazines, created by friends that constantly sort certain characteristics into groups A and B--including the ubiquitous Type A and Type B personality classifications.  Monica or Rachel , Feminist or not.   I saw the same either/or mentality in the Ken Burns documentary Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. 

Many of the commentators in the clips we watched in class discussed how Stanton and Anthony were opposites.  The painted the women as the two options for womanhood.  Stanton was married and just kept having children.  Anthony was devoted to the work.  It invited the question, Are you an Anthony or a Stanton? 

But what if I'm both? What if I am committed to working for a cause I believe in, but equally committed to whatever type of family I choose to surround myself with?  It seemed absurd to me to pull out these characteristics about these women and pit them against each other.  They were both obviously more complicated than a simple category can convey.  We are all more complicated than a strict dichotomy.  Let's stop stamping out that complexity with dumb categories.  

Share the wealth: emotional labor and the essential confidant

Last week, I started my third year of law school, and the shock of returning to academia for the semester felt like a tempestuous sea on which I was a small rowboat. This particular week was more chaotic that those in the past, however, because my partner Benjamin was also beginning school. We were both lost on the tides of schedule upheaval with no sheltering port in sight.

Ben hasn’t been in school for many years, so this is a particularly difficult transition for him. “Ben’s transition is much more difficult than mine,” I told myself. This is my third year and I should be OK: he is the one that needs the extra support. I tried to give him that 'extra support,' but I struggled because of time obligations and my own state of emotional turmoil. Suddenly, I felt punishingly guilty.

Ben wasn’t wounded by this ‘egregious’ lack of support on my end – he just told me about school, and we talked things through, trying to sort his new priorities as best we could with little time. When I complained about my own transition, he listened patiently, and the listening didn’t seem to disturb him either. Nonetheless, I berated myself for not listening more and for not talking less.

By Wednesday, I was exhausted by my guilt. I mentioned the feelings to my carpool-confidant, Lily. Lily is a brilliant woman with a passion for gender studies, and she had a simple answer. It was a phrase that I’d never heard, but it rolled off her tongue like music to my ears: emotional labor. She said that, as a woman, I was used to doing the greater share of emotional work in my heterosexual relationship, and when I couldn’t live up to the labor I’d become accustomed to doing, I got overwhelmed.

The concept of emotional labor has been around for half a century, but recently came back to the forefront due to sex workers’ online discussion of it as an uncompensated but ubiquitous portion of their jobs. In her Guardian article, Rose Hackman describes emotional labor as encompassing the aspects of life that women appear “to better at:”

[W]e know where the spare set of keys is. We multi-task. We know when we’re almost out of Q-tips, and plan on buying more. We are just better at remembering birthdays. We love catering to loved ones, and we make note of what they like to eat . . .

These aspects of “remembering” and doting, Hackman argues, are not necessarily natural talents. Women have been socialized to see the underpinnings of our relationships and to work harder at maintaining them with support and intimacy. This socialization comes with a cost. As scholar Rebecca Erickson observes,

[o]ffering encouragement, showing your appreciation, listening closely to what someone has to say, and expressing empathy with another person's feelings (even when they are not shared)-day after day, year after year-represent emotion work of the highest order.

As I listened to Lily and later read these articles, I felt so validated! I had never even heard of emotional labor and yet I was living it every day. I had been living it from a very young age, and recall a mantra my mother (an exceptional emotional laborer) taught me in my tween years. When I didn’t feel like being cheery but had to be, Mama taught me to sarcastically think “showtime!” in my head and brace myself. She often used this tactic in her professional life in customer-service (another aspect of the fallout of this phenomenon is that low-wage ‘service with a smile’ jobs are predominantly performed by women).

We recently screened portions of Ken Burns’ documentary Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. In it, I saw both women steeling themselves for emotional labor. I watched Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s joie de vivre become feigned cheerfulness when she was under the stress of emotional labor, just as my mother’s would during the tail-end of a long shift. I saw Susan B. Anthony become reserved and withdrawn, the same way I do when under the same burden. These were powerful women who worked tirelessly for women’s rights, and yet they were bound by the same incognito emotional obligations that I am today.

However, I also saw these two female powerhouses help each other bear their emotional labor with respect and empathy, and this heartened me. Though I had been planning to denounce my emotional labor, as I watched Anthony and Stanton, I realized that I like many of the aspects of emotional work I do each day. It suits me.

Instead of pushing it away, perhaps the answer is to remember to share the workload. Women may be programmed to do more emotional labor, but we don’t have to go it alone. Try this today: tell a confidant something you’ve been mentally chewing on, something you wouldn't usually disclose. It can be as small as your shopping list. See if talking it through lifts your burden a bit. 

If you’re feeling really adventurous, go further than sharing emotional labor with those who already know it’s weight. If you identify as female, try sharing your emotional burden with a man.

Benjamin is a great example of a cis-gendered man who is already in solidarity with my revolution of emotional equity. He may not “naturally” take on as much emotional labor as I, but he has his ways of helping with the load. I don’t think I’d ever leave the house with breakfast or inflated bicycle tires if it weren’t for that man. Ben is unique, however. He was socialized as a middle child, taking on great emotional burdens for his family in his youth. 

Ben has also worked in customer service for two decades. Perhaps the next step in the emotional-labor revolution is this: enlist the emotional light-weights in our lives to work front-of-house in busy restaurants. That will give them a high-velocity dose of the meaning of “showtime!”

How do I prevent my pen from being sexist?

Gender-based marketing is a pervasive phenomenon on which a number of studies have been conducted. Some goods like cosmetics or hygiene products are advertised, designed and priced differently based on the gender they target. Several examples of studies and striking differences between products are collected in the following blog post : The woman tax: gendered products and gendered pricing. 

Products that aim to please women are often made pricier and tinier. Companies using this strategy are thus able to sell more products and charge more for them. Thankfully, more people have become aware of this phenomenon. For instance, the Bic pens "For her" started a controversy on the Internet (see for example the hilarious comment section on Amazon) and on TV (on The Ellen Show). 

Nevertheless, women generally pay more for their products, while usually earning less money. This situation is referred to as "the pink tax" and has been comparatively analyzed with the masculine gendering of products in an interesting previous post. 

The angle of this post however is to identify ways to reverse the tendency and to look at what has already been done to that effect. Which specific legal tools are in place ? How can we as consumers impact this discriminatory phenomenon? What should we keep in mind while making the decision to buy such goods?

From a legal point of view, State Senator Ben Hueso of California has proposed to 

prohibit business establishments from charging customers different prices for similar or like goods on the basis of gender (Equal gender pricing Bill, SB 899).

The California Senate approved the bill in May 2016, but the project was then withdrawn by Sen. Hueso on June 28th, apparently due to

strong industry opposition from retailers and manufacturers who argued its conditions were ambiguous and would open the way to a wave of frivolous lawsuits (Los Angeles Times, article by Jazime Ulloa, June 29th, 2016).

One might choose to see this withdrawal as a positive sign. Indeed, the California legislature and its congressmen and congresswomen are now undoubtedly informed of the issue and the possible solutions. It will just take more time to accommodate all the stakeholders.

On a related topic, California Assemblymember Cristina Garcia introduced a measure last January to exempt feminine hygiene products from sales tax (AB 1561). That is, to abolish the so-called "tampon tax". The bill is now on the Governor's desk, waiting for his signature. A few states do not tax these products while others, such as New York, are passing similar bills. Actual legal change could very well happen in the near future, so we should keep an eye on it.

From an individual and every-day life point of view, the first step is to be aware of gender marketing. Carefully comparing products made for men or women before buying them or identifying and purchasing gender-neutral products are good ways to save money and take a silent but economically potent stand. Raising awareness and making people think of these unjustified inequalities by simply pointing out the price difference is another idea.

What really matters in the end is choosing to buy whatever one needs while being conscious of the marketing strategies. If one prefers to buy the pink Bic pen, so be it. Yet it would be more desirable to be aware of these matters and not be manipulated into buying it to affirm some sort of femininity rather than just by mere personal preference.